Navigating Academic Research Barriers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20591643Keywords:
Experiential Audit, Research Funding, CARE List, API List, Promotion Norms, Workload Distribution, COVID-19, Careers, Research Choices, Equity, Policy Reform.Abstract
Scholarly research is by and large an outcome of funding received by individual or collaborative efforts. The criteria of major funding agencies in a region place constraints on not only contemporary research choices but also on intellectual development over longer career trajectories. Many funders have their focus areas predetermined to address topical challenges of societal relevance, and these areas receive higher priority. Consequently, research by a larger number of scholars falls outside priority areas, that research is often beyond the spotlight and appears to move at a slow pace. The political parties in power and their support agencies taste success only when high-profile issues are attended to, albeit in the form of big-bang solutions. Since there is always a plethora of problems in the country, funding priority areas tend to be repetitive over different funding calls. The normative aspect of funding agencies in a country-and its intensity act as a guiding compass to steer the direction of research, irrespective of an individual’s intellectual aspiration.
The lists drawn up by API and CARE committees place undue importance on the quantity of research publications, irrespective of the funding and nature of research. Even simple research studies that require no more than a year of work and intellectual thought are found to be published in bulk. Quality is compromised for quantity. Care is taken to ensure that these publications appear in journals that find a place in the API/CARE lists. The nature of promotion and appointee selection norms need not be explained, as these are the common expectations for attaining recognizable success in an academic career. The pattern of workload distribution also has a significant role to play in influencing research direction. An unequal share of class and administrative work prevents these individuals from investing quality time in research. Given the importance of these issues, an experiential audit was conducted to ascertain whether or to what extent funding norms, the API/CARE list, promotion criteria, and workload distribution influence research choices.
References
[1] Barrett, L., & Dannenberg, M. (2021). The economics of scientific research funding. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 35(3), 175–198.
[2] Bernard, R. E., & Cooperdock, E. H. G. (2018). No progress on diversity in 40 years. Nature Geoscience, 11(5), 292–295.
[3] Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3), 789–865.
[4] Brainard, J. (2020). Scientists are drowning in paperwork. Science, 367(6479), 123–124.
[5] Butterworth, P., Leach, L. S., Pirkis, J., & Kelaher, M. (2011). Poor mental health influences risk and duration of unemployment: A prospective study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47(6), 1013–1021.
[6] Campbell, H. A., Micheli-Campbell, M. A., & Udyawer, V. (2019). Early career researchers embrace data sharing. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 34(2), 95–98.
[7] Casci, T., Adams, E., & Tan, H. (2023). Research culture: What it is and why it matters. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(1), 1–3.
[8] Chubb, J., & Watermeyer, R. (2017). Artifice or integrity in the marketization of research impact? Research Evaluation, 26(1), 1–10.
[9] Chugh, D., & Leroy, S. (2022). The hidden costs of constant availability in academic work. Organizational Dynamics, 51(3), 100887.
[10] Collins, A. M., & Tabak, L. A. (2014). Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature, 505(7485), 612–613.
[11] Cook, I., Grange, S., & Eyre-Walker, A. (2015). Research groups: How big should they be? Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 12(104), 20150316.
[12] Elsevier. (2023). Research culture: Shaping the future of research assessment. Elsevier Research Intelligence.
[13] European Commission. (2021). Towards a reform of the research assessment system: Scoping report. Publications Office of the European Union.
[14] Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2011). Changing incentives to publish. Science, 333(6043), 702–703.
[15] Gardner, S. K. (2009). The development of doctoral students: Phases of challenge and support. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(6), 1–127.
[16] Gewin, V. (2021). The career costs of scientific burnout. Nature, 593(7859), 491–493.
[17] Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2016). Governing science: How science policy shapes research content. European Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 117–168.
[18] Grimes, D. R., Bauch, C. T., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Modelling science trustworthiness under publish-or-perish pressure. Royal Society Open Science, 5(7), 171511.
[19] Gunasekara, F. I., Carter, K., & Blakely, T. (2011). Change in income and change in self-rated health. Social Science & Medicine, 73(2), 260–268.
[20] Hall, N. (2020). The consequences of burnout for academic careers. The Psychologist, 33, 18–23.
[21] Hansson, S. (2019). The ethics of research evaluation and metrics. Research Ethics, 15(2), 1–14.
[22] Heijstra, T. M., Steinthorsdóttir, F. S., & Einarsdóttir, T. (2017). Academic career making and the double-edged role of academic housework. Gender and Education, 29(6), 764–780.
[23] Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431.
[24] Hoey, J. (2023). Workload allocation models and academic labour: Equity and transparency challenges. Studies in Higher Education, 48(10), 1920–1935.
[25] Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.
[26] Jensen, P., Rouquier, J. B., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y. (2009). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 36(7), 527–541.
[27] Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0127502.
[28] Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17.
[29] McAlpine, L., & Emmioglu, E. (2015). Navigating careers: Perceptions of early career researchers. Studies in Continuing Education, 37(3), 241–258.
[30] Moher, D., Naudet, F., Cristea, I. A., Miedema, F., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Goodman, S. N. (2018). Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biology, 16(3), e2004089.
[31] Moustafa, K. (2014). Publish-or-perish: A fixation on quantity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(2), 447–449.
[32] Müller, R. (2014). Postdoctoral life scientists and supervisory relationships. Minerva, 52(3), 329–348.
[33] Nature Editorial. (2019). Rewarding research quality and open science. Nature, 569(7756), 289–290.
[34] Plerou, V., Gopikrishnan, P., Stanley, H. E., & Amaral, L. A. N. (1999). The academic career pipeline and cumulative advantage. Physical Review E, 60(6), 6519–6529.
[35] Rauch, J., & Riggio, R. E. (2014). The dark side of leadership: A review. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(4), 43–55.
[36] Sabharwal, M. (2013). Comparing research productivity across disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 263–281.
[37] Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2015). Governing by numbers: Audit culture and rankings. Social Anthropology, 23(1), 22–28.
[38] Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science. Harvard University Press.
[39] The Royal Society. (2017). Research culture: Embedding inclusive excellence. The Royal Society.
[40] Woolston, C. (2020). Postdocs under pressure: Stress and mental health. Nature, 587(7834), 505–508.
Additional Files
Published
Data Availability Statement
The data originates from an experiential audit framework drawing on questionnaire responses from 438 faculty members at 154 colleges and universities, primarily in India, along with qualitative responses to open-ended questions. No formal data availability statement is provided in the paper. You may want to note: "Data available on reasonable request from the author."
