Editorial: Money, money, money: not so funny in the research world
Performance-based research has become the holy grail of academic life, where research output directly influences the distribution of funding to universities. This in turn, shapes research priorities and can see nursing research underresourced and marginalised. In recent years, there have been substantial changes in the university research environment, and ‘performance-based research funding systems [PRFSs]’ are among the ‘novelties introduced’ (Hicks 2012, p. 251). These PRFSs are complex, dynamic systems, which supposedly balance peer review and metrics amongst other factors. The importance of PRFSs is based on the distribution of universities’ research funding – an illusion; as in reality, it is the competition for prestige that creates powerful incentives within universities (Hicks 2012). With the right circumstances, such distribution will support control by a group of privileged professionals, and may compromise equally important values like equity, social inclusion, access and diversity (Hicks 2012). Funding imperatives (and consequent track records) have changed the way individual staff performance is viewed within academic settings. This is in part due to the institutions themselves being pressured to meet financial and bureaucratic targets in a competitive market (Adams 1998). Given the current academic climate which emphasises competitive research money and publications, there are emerging concerns for academic staff within the work context. These matters can potentially have a profound effect on the workplace environment; including staff attitudes, morale and relationships, as well as recruitment and retention. As a result of the way staff performance is judged in relation to
acquisition of funds, a climate of rivalry, conflict and exclusion has arisen in some institutions, with a discourse of disparagement and derision directed at those who fail to meet income-generating targets. According to Bloch et al. (2014), the rationale for the increased attention and reliance on competitive funding is premised on the view that if resources are given to researchers and universities that are the most qualified and with proven track records, then subsequently there will be improvements in performance in both research and education. There is, however, marked variation between countries on expectations, academic workloads and the way teaching and research is assessed in terms of performance. Research across eight countries into university research funding environments showed significant differences in the funding system competitiveness, with Australia and the UK positioned as the most output-oriented systems; with output being integral to obtaining external government funding (Auranen & Nieminen 2010). Other countries (Norway, Finland and the Netherlands) also used competition-based incentives, but not as exhaustively, and Sweden, Germany and Denmark were the least output-oriented countries (Auranen & Nieminen 2010). Interestingly, this study showed that those countries with more competitive environments had not increased their efficiency in publication output and that less competitive environments were almost as efficient (Auranen & Nieminen 2010). The corrosive effects of the limited funding pool in some countries are becoming widespread leading to increased competition and the erosion of the academic work environment. Competition and funding incentives
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24, 611–613, doi: 10.1111/jocn.12750
can be enforced too excessively, and the environment itself can become dysfunctional with resultant negative impacts on productivity (Auranen & Nieminen 2010). Clearly, not all nursing faculty or departments will have appropriate resources available to support research proposal development. Preparing grants is time consuming, involves considerable effort and can take some months to prepare, even for highly experienced and seasoned research teams. This time is out laid at the expense of the conduct of research and other activities required for a wellrounded academic nursing career. The pressure is such that nurses may continue to apply for all competitive funding opportunities; however, success rates are likely to be low due to increasing competition. Additionally, research staff employed on short-terms contracts (sometimes of 1–2 years duration), are left without jobs if further funding is not secured. This puts pressure on nurses to secure funding; otherwise the staff they have trained and developed will be left without work. A similar situation exists for academic staff, who themselves may be employed on a contract where unmet targets may mean their contracts will not be renewed. These pressures can impact the ability of a research team to pursue any substantial or strategic research agenda. It can be disillusioning preparing funding proposals, which exhausts over-stretched and highly skilled research teams, just to get another rejection. Healthcare research should be systematic and relevant, building on previous research and contributing and advancing healthcare knowledge – directly or indirectly (Altman 2002). A concern is that if only highly specialised groups, consortiums and centres
611
Editorial
of excellence or specialty research groups achieve funding, then the scope, and depth and the artistry of nursing knowledge will be threatened, possibly fragmented or absent (Cleary et al. 2013), and research driven for practice improvement may disappear. So while it is important that funded projects are systematic, and iteratively build on evidence, published papers will be limited to the type of knowledge encouraged by the funding-driven research environment, possibly meaning that opportunities for exciting and innovative research opportunities are missed. The challenge is to encourage and support mainstream research imperatives in the absence of funding, while still providing adequate support and resources for new and innovative ideas. It is encouraging to see the considerable growth in funding by industry and other external organisations in recent years with mutual spin-offs such as networks, promotion of academic programmes and clinical placements, and consultancies. There is limited evidence about the effects of industry funding on nursing research, but it would seem likely that it would lead to increased levels of engagement, stronger industry– university relations, enhanced collaborative activities and increased success with respect to innovation, growth and development and knowledge transfer (Bozeman & Gaughan 2007). Workloads for academic nurses often reflect the above requirements, publication in high impact journals, competitive research funding and community engagement/service, with some departments going so far as listing expectations for the number of papers to be published, and the number of grants applications required to be submitted within a time frame to remain research active, employed or fulfil probationary requirements, and/or be eligible for promotion. This creates additional pressure to succeed. With the growing demands on academic nurses to acquire funding, and publish results, there are multiple issues emerging with regard to ethics in publishing. An emerging area of concern in some areas of academia and healthcare is the expectation to produce quick research outcomes. Misrepresentation of find-
612
ings and serious allegations of research misconduct including falsified data and manipulated images are reported in the media (see http://www.abc.net. au/news/2013-10-25/scott-selling-science/ 5043620). Retracted papers due to publishing too many papers from a single research study can also be a concern (Jackson et al. 2014), and there is a specific website entitled Retraction Watch that provides examples of various publishing transgressions (http:// retractionwatch.com/). While the goals of editors and authors is to advance health science, poor research methods and research which is redundant or even unnecessary should be resisted and this is the responsibility of researchers (Altman 2002). It is therefore important in the current outcomes-oriented climate, that integrity and quality research is maintained. In terms of evidence based practice, we also need to be mindful that much original research can be undertaken without funding and that many good quality (but unfunded) studies are conducted and published in high impact journals (Cleary et al. 2006). Research is considered important in all settings. For academics, however, a performance-based output orientation exists and attracting external competitive research funding is highly regarded and can potentially impact academic career pathways. If external grants and awards are obtained, publications produced in high impact factor, quality journals and international conference presentations delivered, then it is not only good for the academic nurse and their track record, but the university as well who may also be the beneficiary of government subsidies, considerable status and prestige and improved university rankings (Cleary et al. 2012). The latter is considered particularly important for attracting students especially international students, who also generate additional considerable university income. Further, nurses who receive a grant often have enhanced career advancement opportunities through ongoing collaboration with other leading researchers and other activities, which may impact performance due to improved skills, recognition and status
within their research community (Bloch et al. 2014). In Bloch et al. (2014) research, the probability of becoming a full professor was almost double for individuals who received grants, suggesting that the impact of receiving a research grant is higher at an early career stage. Acknowledgement also needs to be given to other areas in universities that are equally important such as achieving excellence in teaching, and the precious role teachers have in teaching students the art and craft of nursing and research, and ensuring that academic programs are of high quality and therefore attract students (Cleary et al. 2013). Teaching also attracts substantial income from universities and needs to be viewed favourably and valued. Finally, there are only so many hours in the day, and expectations on academic nurses should be realistic. Achieving success in publication, research funding and teaching is not without great effort and time and it would be na€ıve to think that these are undertaken in the confines of a normal working week. Academics derive satisfaction from their work and are motivated to create and disseminate knowledge (Adams 1998). The institution’s managers, leaders and committees’ all have a significant role to play in fostering and developing a positive and collegial research and teaching culture, which supports and values nursing and aims to build capacity in nursing teaching and research scholarship. Michelle Cleary School of Nursing and Midwifery University of Western Sydney Sydney NSW Australia Kim Usher School of Health University of New England NSW Armidale NSW Australia Debra Jackson Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Oxford Brookes University Oxford UK
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24, 611–613
Editorial
References Adams D (1998) Examining the fabric of academic life: an analysis of three decades of research on the perceptions of Australian academics about their roles. Higher Education 36, 421–435. Altman DG (2002) Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? Journal of the American Medical Association 287, 2765–2767. Auranen O & Nieminen M (2010) University research funding and publication performance—An international comparison. Research Policy 39, 822–834.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24, 611–613
Bloch C, Graversen EK & Pedersen HS (2014) Competitive research grants and their impact on career performance. Minerva 52, 77–96. Bozeman B & Gaughan M (2007) Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy 36, 694–707. Cleary M, Walter G & Hunt G (2006) The quest to fund research: playing research lotto. Australasian Psychiatry 14, 323–326. Cleary M, Mackey S, Hunt GE, Jackson D, Thompson DR & Walter G (2012) Reputations: a critical yet neglected
area of scholarly enquiry. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68, 2137–2139. Cleary M, Horsfall J & Jackson D (2013) Teaching mental health nursing is, at the very least, a craft, an art, and a science. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 34, 136–137. Hicks D (2012) Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy 41, 251–261. Jackson D, Walter G, Daly J & Cleary M (2014) Editorial: Multiple outputs from single studies: acceptable division of findings vs. ‘salami’ slicing. Journal of Clinical Nursing 23, 1–2.
613
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.
Performance-based research has become the holy grail of academic life, where research output directly influences the distribution of funding to universities. This in turn, shapes research priorities and can see nursing research underresourced and marginalised. In recent years, there have been substantial changes in the university research environment, and ‘performance-based research funding systems [PRFSs]’ are among the ‘novelties introduced’ (Hicks 2012, p. 251). These PRFSs are complex, dynamic systems, which supposedly balance peer review and metrics amongst other factors. The importance of PRFSs is based on the distribution of universities’ research funding – an illusion; as in reality, it is the competition for prestige that creates powerful incentives within universities (Hicks 2012). With the right circumstances, such distribution will support control by a group of privileged professionals, and may compromise equally important values like equity, social inclusion, access and diversity (Hicks 2012). Funding imperatives (and consequent track records) have changed the way individual staff performance is viewed within academic settings. This is in part due to the institutions themselves being pressured to meet financial and bureaucratic targets in a competitive market (Adams 1998). Given the current academic climate which emphasises competitive research money and publications, there are emerging concerns for academic staff within the work context. These matters can potentially have a profound effect on the workplace environment; including staff attitudes, morale and relationships, as well as recruitment and retention. As a result of the way staff performance is judged in relation to
acquisition of funds, a climate of rivalry, conflict and exclusion has arisen in some institutions, with a discourse of disparagement and derision directed at those who fail to meet income-generating targets. According to Bloch et al. (2014), the rationale for the increased attention and reliance on competitive funding is premised on the view that if resources are given to researchers and universities that are the most qualified and with proven track records, then subsequently there will be improvements in performance in both research and education. There is, however, marked variation between countries on expectations, academic workloads and the way teaching and research is assessed in terms of performance. Research across eight countries into university research funding environments showed significant differences in the funding system competitiveness, with Australia and the UK positioned as the most output-oriented systems; with output being integral to obtaining external government funding (Auranen & Nieminen 2010). Other countries (Norway, Finland and the Netherlands) also used competition-based incentives, but not as exhaustively, and Sweden, Germany and Denmark were the least output-oriented countries (Auranen & Nieminen 2010). Interestingly, this study showed that those countries with more competitive environments had not increased their efficiency in publication output and that less competitive environments were almost as efficient (Auranen & Nieminen 2010). The corrosive effects of the limited funding pool in some countries are becoming widespread leading to increased competition and the erosion of the academic work environment. Competition and funding incentives
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24, 611–613, doi: 10.1111/jocn.12750
can be enforced too excessively, and the environment itself can become dysfunctional with resultant negative impacts on productivity (Auranen & Nieminen 2010). Clearly, not all nursing faculty or departments will have appropriate resources available to support research proposal development. Preparing grants is time consuming, involves considerable effort and can take some months to prepare, even for highly experienced and seasoned research teams. This time is out laid at the expense of the conduct of research and other activities required for a wellrounded academic nursing career. The pressure is such that nurses may continue to apply for all competitive funding opportunities; however, success rates are likely to be low due to increasing competition. Additionally, research staff employed on short-terms contracts (sometimes of 1–2 years duration), are left without jobs if further funding is not secured. This puts pressure on nurses to secure funding; otherwise the staff they have trained and developed will be left without work. A similar situation exists for academic staff, who themselves may be employed on a contract where unmet targets may mean their contracts will not be renewed. These pressures can impact the ability of a research team to pursue any substantial or strategic research agenda. It can be disillusioning preparing funding proposals, which exhausts over-stretched and highly skilled research teams, just to get another rejection. Healthcare research should be systematic and relevant, building on previous research and contributing and advancing healthcare knowledge – directly or indirectly (Altman 2002). A concern is that if only highly specialised groups, consortiums and centres
611
Editorial
of excellence or specialty research groups achieve funding, then the scope, and depth and the artistry of nursing knowledge will be threatened, possibly fragmented or absent (Cleary et al. 2013), and research driven for practice improvement may disappear. So while it is important that funded projects are systematic, and iteratively build on evidence, published papers will be limited to the type of knowledge encouraged by the funding-driven research environment, possibly meaning that opportunities for exciting and innovative research opportunities are missed. The challenge is to encourage and support mainstream research imperatives in the absence of funding, while still providing adequate support and resources for new and innovative ideas. It is encouraging to see the considerable growth in funding by industry and other external organisations in recent years with mutual spin-offs such as networks, promotion of academic programmes and clinical placements, and consultancies. There is limited evidence about the effects of industry funding on nursing research, but it would seem likely that it would lead to increased levels of engagement, stronger industry– university relations, enhanced collaborative activities and increased success with respect to innovation, growth and development and knowledge transfer (Bozeman & Gaughan 2007). Workloads for academic nurses often reflect the above requirements, publication in high impact journals, competitive research funding and community engagement/service, with some departments going so far as listing expectations for the number of papers to be published, and the number of grants applications required to be submitted within a time frame to remain research active, employed or fulfil probationary requirements, and/or be eligible for promotion. This creates additional pressure to succeed. With the growing demands on academic nurses to acquire funding, and publish results, there are multiple issues emerging with regard to ethics in publishing. An emerging area of concern in some areas of academia and healthcare is the expectation to produce quick research outcomes. Misrepresentation of find-
612
ings and serious allegations of research misconduct including falsified data and manipulated images are reported in the media (see http://www.abc.net. au/news/2013-10-25/scott-selling-science/ 5043620). Retracted papers due to publishing too many papers from a single research study can also be a concern (Jackson et al. 2014), and there is a specific website entitled Retraction Watch that provides examples of various publishing transgressions (http:// retractionwatch.com/). While the goals of editors and authors is to advance health science, poor research methods and research which is redundant or even unnecessary should be resisted and this is the responsibility of researchers (Altman 2002). It is therefore important in the current outcomes-oriented climate, that integrity and quality research is maintained. In terms of evidence based practice, we also need to be mindful that much original research can be undertaken without funding and that many good quality (but unfunded) studies are conducted and published in high impact journals (Cleary et al. 2006). Research is considered important in all settings. For academics, however, a performance-based output orientation exists and attracting external competitive research funding is highly regarded and can potentially impact academic career pathways. If external grants and awards are obtained, publications produced in high impact factor, quality journals and international conference presentations delivered, then it is not only good for the academic nurse and their track record, but the university as well who may also be the beneficiary of government subsidies, considerable status and prestige and improved university rankings (Cleary et al. 2012). The latter is considered particularly important for attracting students especially international students, who also generate additional considerable university income. Further, nurses who receive a grant often have enhanced career advancement opportunities through ongoing collaboration with other leading researchers and other activities, which may impact performance due to improved skills, recognition and status
within their research community (Bloch et al. 2014). In Bloch et al. (2014) research, the probability of becoming a full professor was almost double for individuals who received grants, suggesting that the impact of receiving a research grant is higher at an early career stage. Acknowledgement also needs to be given to other areas in universities that are equally important such as achieving excellence in teaching, and the precious role teachers have in teaching students the art and craft of nursing and research, and ensuring that academic programs are of high quality and therefore attract students (Cleary et al. 2013). Teaching also attracts substantial income from universities and needs to be viewed favourably and valued. Finally, there are only so many hours in the day, and expectations on academic nurses should be realistic. Achieving success in publication, research funding and teaching is not without great effort and time and it would be na€ıve to think that these are undertaken in the confines of a normal working week. Academics derive satisfaction from their work and are motivated to create and disseminate knowledge (Adams 1998). The institution’s managers, leaders and committees’ all have a significant role to play in fostering and developing a positive and collegial research and teaching culture, which supports and values nursing and aims to build capacity in nursing teaching and research scholarship. Michelle Cleary School of Nursing and Midwifery University of Western Sydney Sydney NSW Australia Kim Usher School of Health University of New England NSW Armidale NSW Australia Debra Jackson Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Oxford Brookes University Oxford UK
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24, 611–613
Editorial
References Adams D (1998) Examining the fabric of academic life: an analysis of three decades of research on the perceptions of Australian academics about their roles. Higher Education 36, 421–435. Altman DG (2002) Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? Journal of the American Medical Association 287, 2765–2767. Auranen O & Nieminen M (2010) University research funding and publication performance—An international comparison. Research Policy 39, 822–834.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24, 611–613
Bloch C, Graversen EK & Pedersen HS (2014) Competitive research grants and their impact on career performance. Minerva 52, 77–96. Bozeman B & Gaughan M (2007) Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy 36, 694–707. Cleary M, Walter G & Hunt G (2006) The quest to fund research: playing research lotto. Australasian Psychiatry 14, 323–326. Cleary M, Mackey S, Hunt GE, Jackson D, Thompson DR & Walter G (2012) Reputations: a critical yet neglected
area of scholarly enquiry. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68, 2137–2139. Cleary M, Horsfall J & Jackson D (2013) Teaching mental health nursing is, at the very least, a craft, an art, and a science. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 34, 136–137. Hicks D (2012) Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy 41, 251–261. Jackson D, Walter G, Daly J & Cleary M (2014) Editorial: Multiple outputs from single studies: acceptable division of findings vs. ‘salami’ slicing. Journal of Clinical Nursing 23, 1–2.
613
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.
