The Association between Researchers’ Conceptions of Research and Their Strategic Research Agendas

doi:10.2478/jdis-2020-0032

Abstract

Abstract:

Purpose: In studies of the research process, the association between how researchers conceptualize research and their strategic research agendas has been largely overlooked. This study aims to address this gap.

Design/methodology/approach: This study analyzes this relationship using a dataset of more than 8,500 researchers across all scientific fields and the globe. It studies the associations between the dimensions of two inventories: the Conceptions of Research Inventory (CoRI) and the Multi-Dimensional Research Agenda Inventory—Revised (MDRAI-R).

Findings: The findings show a relatively strong association between researchers’ conceptions of research and their research agendas. While all conceptions of research are positively related to scientific ambition, the findings are mixed regarding how the dimensions of the two inventories relate to one another, which is significant for those seeking to understand the knowledge production process better.

Research limitations: The study relies on self-reported data, which always carries a risk of response bias.

Practical implications: The findings provide a greater understanding of the inner workings of knowledge processes and indicate that the two inventories, whether used individually or in combination, may provide complementary analytical perspectives to research performance indicators. They may thus offer important insights for managers of research environments regarding how to assess the research culture, beliefs, and conceptualizations of individual researchers and research teams when designing strategies to promote specific institutional research focuses and strategies.

Originality/value: To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to associate research agendas and conceptions of research. It is based on a large sample of researchers working worldwide and in all fields of knowledge, which ensures that the findings have a reasonable degree of generalizability to the global population of researchers.

Key words: Conception of research, Research agendas, Researchers’ beliefs, Research strategy, Views of research, Research processes

M. Santos, João, and Hugo Horta. "The Association between Researchers’ Conceptions of Research and Their Strategic Research Agendas." Journal of Data and Information Science, vol.5, no.4, 2020, pp.56-74. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2020-0032

Figures/Tables 2

Table 1

Table 2

Effects of conceptions of research on research agenda setting.

	Ambition	Divergence	Collab	Mentor	TTLF	Discovery	Academia	Society
Truth	0.069***	-0.034***	-0.008	0.021	-0.025	0.048***	-0.026**	-0.114***
	(0.011)	(0.011)	(0.010)	(0.017)	(0.016)	(0.011)	(0.012)	(0.013)
Misconceptions	0.056***	0.014	-0.026**	0.277***	0.078***	-0.040***	0.165***	0.150***
	(0.013)	(0.013)	(0.012)	(0.020)	(0.019)	(0.013)	(0.014)	(0.015)
Problem-solving	0.064***	0.157***	0.127***	0.034	-0.044*	0.068***	0.113***	0.310***
	(0.016)	(0.016)	(0.015)	(0.025)	(0.024)	(0.016)	(0.018)	(0.019)
Re-research	0.104***	0.025	0.029**	0.087***	0.017	-0.020	0.085***	0.030*
	(0.016)	(0.016)	(0.014)	(0.024)	(0.023)	(0.016)	(0.017)	(0.018)
Insightful process	0.258***	0.118***	0.241***	-0.127***	0.085***	0.312***	-0.030	-0.060**
	(0.021)	(0.021)	(0.019)	(0.032)	(0.030)	(0.021)	(0.023)	(0.024)
Gender (Male)	0.091***	-0.010	0.030	0.034	0.237***	0.101***	-0.172***	-0.121***
	(0.022)	(0.022)	(0.019)	(0.033)	(0.032)	(0.022)	(0.024)	(0.025)
Age	-0.020***	-0.007***	-0.002*	-0.006**	0.022***	0.001	0.000	0.016***
	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.001)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)
Time since PhD	0.010***	-0.002	0.004***	-0.024***	-0.005**	0.005***	-0.016***	-0.021***
	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.001)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)
Research universities (top 500)	0.046*	0.020	0.009	0.031	-0.053	0.054**	-0.134***	-0.080***
Research universities (top 500)	(0.026)	(0.026)	(0.023)	(0.039)	(0.037)	(0.026)	(0.028)	(0.030)
FOS (Engineering and Technology)	-0.034	0.157***	-0.078***	0.021	0.046	0.129***	0.072**	0.444***
FOS (Engineering and Technology)	(0.028)	(0.029)	(0.025)	(0.043)	(0.041)	(0.029)	(0.031)	(0.032)
FOS (Medical and Health sciences)	0.075***	0.082***	0.140***	0.142***	-0.120***	0.015	0.154***	0.389***
FOS (Medical and Health sciences)	(0.028)	(0.028)	(0.025)	(0.043)	(0.041)	(0.028)	(0.031)	(0.032)
FOS (Social sciences)	0.089***	-0.061**	-0.010	-0.002	0.488***	0.067**	-0.172***	0.628***
	(0.028)	(0.028)	(0.025)	(0.043)	(0.041)	(0.028)	(0.031)	(0.032)
FOS (Humanities)	0.119**	0.044	-0.229***	-0.231**	0.743***	0.245***	-0.355***	0.398***
	(0.059)	(0.060)	(0.053)	(0.090)	(0.086)	(0.060)	(0.064)	(0.068)
Career internationalization	0.098***	0.087***	0.017	-0.136***	0.107***	0.137***	0.003	-0.074***
Career internationalization	(0.024)	(0.024)	(0.022)	(0.037)	(0.035)	(0.024)	(0.026)	(0.028)
Country controls	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observations	8,554	8,555	8,554	7,920	8,551	8,554	8,554	8,551
R-squared	0.147	0.079	0.108	0.172	0.103	0.089	0.163	0.206

Table 2

References 51

[1]	Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., & Costa, F.D. (2018). The effects of gender, age, and academic rank on research diversification. Scientometrics, 114(2), 373-387. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2529-1
[2]	Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines Buckingham: Open University Press Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.
[3]	Bentley, P.J. (2014). Cross-country differences in publishing productivity of academics in research universities. Scientometrics, 102, 865-883. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1430-4
[4]	Bourdieu, P. (1999). The specificity of the scientific field. The Science Studies Reader. Ed. Biagioli, M. New York: Routledge, 31-50.
[5]	Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy, 40(10), 1393-1402. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.002
[6]	Brew, A. (2001). Conceptions of research: A phenomenographic study. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 271-285. doi: 10.1080/03075070120076255
[7]	Brew, A., Boud, D., Namgung, S.U., Lucas, L., & Crawford, K. (2016). Research productivity and academics’ conceptions of research. Higher Education, 71, 681-697. doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9930-6
[8]	Coate, K., & Howson, C.K. (2016). Indicators of esteem: Gender and prestige in academic work. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(4), 567-585. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2014.955082
[9]	Corry, M., Porter, S., & McKenna, H. (2019). The redundancy of positivism as a paradigm for nursing research. Nursing Philosophy, 20(1), e12230. doi: 10.1111/nup.12230 pmid: 30431226
[10]	Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2015). How to become an important player in scientific collaboration networks? Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 809-825. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.002
[11]	Foster, J.G., Rzhetsky, A., & Evans, J.A. (2015). Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 875-908. doi: 10.1177/0003122415601618
[12]	Fuller, S. (2012). Social epistemology: A quarter-century itinerary. Social Epistemology, 26, 267-283. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2012.714415
[13]	Gaskin, J. (2016). Stats Tool Package. Retrieved from http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com
[14]	Gaughan, M. (2009). Using the curriculum vitae for policy research: An evaluation of National Institutes of Health center and training support on career trajectories. Research Evaluation, 18(2), 117-124. doi: 10.3152/095820209X441781
[15]	Gorman, S.E., & Gorman, J.M.. (2017). Denying to the grave: Why we ignore the facts that will save us Oxford: Oxford University Press Why we ignore the facts that will save us Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[16]	Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. & Tatham, R.L. (2007). Multivariate data analysis. New York: McGraw Hill Publishing.
[17]	Hemmings, B. (2012). Sources of research confidence for early career academics: A qualitative study. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 171-184.
[18]	Hoolohan, C., McLachlan, C., & Larkin, A. (2019). ‘Aha’ moments in the water-energy-food nexus: A new morphological scenario method to accelerate sustainable transformation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148, 119712 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119712
[19]	Horta, H., Jung, J., & Santos, J.M. (2019). Mobility and research performance of academics in city-based higher education systems. Higher Education Policy. doi: 10.1057/s41307-019-00173-x
[20]	Horta, H., & Santos, J.M. (2016). An instrument to measure individuals’ research agenda setting: The multi-dimensional research agendas inventory. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1243-1265. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2012-4 doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2012-4
[21]	Horta, H., & Santos, J.M. (2019a). Organisational factors and academic research agendas: An analysis of academics in the social sciences. Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1612351 doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00623-1 pmid: 33052145
[22]	Horta, H., & Santos, J.M. (2019b). The development of a new instrument to measure research agendas (poster). ISSI 2019, Rome, Italy.
[23]	Horta, H., & Santos, J.M. (2020) The multidimensional research agendas inventory—revised (MDRAI-R): Factors shaping researchers’ research agendas in all fields of knowledge. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 60-93. doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00017
[24]	Huang, F., Daizen, T., & Kim, Y. (2019). Challenges facing international faculty at Japanese universities: Main findings from the 2017 national survey. International Journal of Educational Development, 71, 102103. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2019.102103
[25]	Jaeger, A.J., Hudson, T.D., Pasque, P.A., & Ampaw, F.D. (2017). Understanding how lifelong learning shapes the career trajectories of women with STEM doctorates: The life experiences and role negotiations (LEARN) model. The Review of Higher Education, 40(4), 477-507. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2017.0019
[26]	Jorgensen, M., Dyba, T., Liestol, K., & Sjoberg, D.I.K. (2016). Incorrect results in software engineering experiments: How to improve research practices. Journal of Systems and Software, 116, 133-145. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.03.065
[27]	Joseph, J., & Baldwin, S. (2000). Four editorial proposals to improve social sciences research and publication. International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, 13(2,3), 109-116.
[28]	Kaiser, A & Leiner, L. (2012). Collaborate with practitioners: But beware of collaborative research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(1), 14-28. doi: 10.1177/1056492611411923
[29]	Kuhn, T.S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[30]	Kuzhabekova, A., & Lee, J.T. (2020). Internationalization and local research capacity strengthening: Factors affecting knowledge sharing between international and local faculty in Kazakhstan. European Education. doi: 10.1080/10564934.2020.1723422
[31]	Kwiek, M. (2019). Changing European academics: A comparative study of social stratification, work patterns and research productivity. Abingdon: Routledge.
[32]	Kwiek, M. (2016). The European research elite: A cross-national study of highly productive academics in 11 countries. Higher Education, 71, 379-397. doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9910-x
[33]	Latour, B., & Woolgar, S.. (2013). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts Princeton: Princeton University Press The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[34]	Lyall, C. (2019). Being an interdisciplinary academic: How institutions shape university careers. Cham: Palgrave.
[35]	Meyer, J.H., Shanahan, M.P., & Laugksch, R.C. (2005). Students’ conceptions of research. I: A qualitative and quantitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(3), 225-244. doi: 10.1080/00313830500109535
[36]	Meyer, J.H., Shanahan, M.P., & Laugksch, R.C. (2007). Students’ conceptions of research. 2: An exploration of contrasting patterns of variation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51(4), 415-433. doi: 10.1080/00313830701485627
[37]	Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. London: Tavistock publications.
[38]	Nairn, S. (2019). Research paradigms and the politics of nursing knowledge: A reflective discussion. Nursing Philosophy, 20(4), e12260. doi: 10.1111/nup.12260 pmid: 31314182
[39]	Nestle, M. (2016). Corporate funding of food and nutrition research: Science or marketing? JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(1), 13-14. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.6667 doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.6667 pmid: 26595855
[40]	Niiniluoto, I. (2020). Social aspect of scientific knowledge. Synthese, 197, 447-468. doi: 10.1007/s11229-018-1868-7
[41]	Oleksiyenko, A., & Ruan, N. (2019). Intellectual leadership and academic communities: Issues for discussion and research. Higher Education Quarterly, 73(4), 406-418. doi: 10.1111/hequ.v73.4
[42]	Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 135-150. doi: 10.1080/03075070220119986c
[43]	Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Routledge.
[44]	Ramos, A.M.G., Palacin, F.F., & Márquez, M.M. (2015). Do men and women perform academic work differently? Tertiary Education and Management, 21(4), 263-276. doi: 10.1080/13583883.2015.1065904
[45]	Santos, J.M., & Horta, H. (2018). The research agenda setting of higher education researchers. Higher Education, 76(4), 649-668. doi: 10.1007/s10734-018-0230-9 doi: 10.1007/s10734-018-0230-9
[46]	Stehr, N., & Grundmann, R. (2011). Experts: The knowledge and power of expertise. Abingdon: Routledge.
[47]	Ursin, J., Vahasantanen, K., McAlpine, L., & Hokka, P. (2020). Emotionally loaded identity and agency in Finnish academic work. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(3), 311-325. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2018.1541971
[48]	Vaesen, K., & Katzav, J. (2017). How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers? PLoS ONE, 12(9), e0183967. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183967 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183967 pmid: 28886054
[49]	Wynn, J. (2017). Citizen science in the digital age: Rhetoric, science, and public engagement. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
[50]	Ying, Q.F., Venkatramanan, S., & Chiu, D.M. (2015). Modeling and analysis of scholar mobility on scientific landscape. WWW ’15 Companion. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web: 609-614 ACM.
[51]	Young, M. (2015). Competitive funding, citation regimes, and the diminishment of breakthrough research. Higher Education, 69, 421-434. doi: 10.1007/s10734-014-9783-4

	Quantitative Variables	M	SD
MDRAI-R dimensions (Dependent variables)	Scientific Ambition	5.073	0.946
	Divergence	5.067	0.918
	Collaboration	5.189	0.826
	Mentor Influence	2.906	1.407
	TTLF	4.210	1.339
	Discovery	5.505	0.922
	Academia Driven	4.031	1.040
	Society Driven	4.066	1.121
CoRI dimensions	Truth-seeking, research as	3.872	0.982
	Misconceptions about research	2.658	0.949
	Problem-solving, research as	3.804	0.728
	Re-research, research as	3.543	0.743
	Insightful process, research as	4.302	0.530
Control Variables	Age	50.751	12.034
	Years Since PhD	18.129	12.533
	Qualitative Variables	N	%
	Gender
	Male	5,691	66.52%
	Female	2,864	33.47%
	Field of Science (FoS)
	Natural & Agricultural Sciences	2,499	29.21%
	Engineering and Technology	1,761	20.58%
	Medical and Health Sciences	1,987	23.23%
	Social Sciences	2,049	23.95%
	Humanities	259	3.02%
	Research University (top 500)
	Yes	1,838	21.48%
	No	6,717	78.51%
	Career internationalization
	Yes	6,423	75.08%
	No	2,132	24.92%