blog

We are reminded constantly — by funders, by policy makers, publishers and by researchers — of the need to incentivise a positive research culture. There is no question that we all want this, but how do we make it happen in practice? Changing culture requires a range of aligned approaches, a lot of patience, as well as creative ways of measuring whether we are moving in the right direction. 

In this Q&A, Elizabeth Adams and Tanita Casci, University of Glasgow, discuss their recently published policy document on F1000Research, which summarises the outcome of an event that brought together around 60 researchers, funders, policy makers, research managers and representatives from the publishing industry to identify the practical actions that promote a positive research culture; that is, one in which good practice and collegiality are the norm.

What were the aims of your event? And why at this time? 

We have grown accustomed to a narrow interpretation of research excellence, based on inputs (e.g. income) and outputs (publications). Not surprisingly, this view has led to a focus on outcomes at any cost — a situation that reinforces results over process, and credit over contribution.

The unintended consequences of the current research incentive and reward system are known. We therefore invited funders, publishers, societies, and policy makers to Glasgow to meet with academics and research managers with the aim of identifying practical actions that might improve the environment in which research is done, so that we could start focussing and rewarding not only on what is done but HOW it is done.

It was important to move from discussion to solution, and for the solution to be shaped by universities — before a solution be imposed on us. It seems like the right time, with the new Concordats on integrity and researcher development and the review of Athena Swan, which all touch on different aspects of culture.

Why was it important to include a broad range of participants from mixed disciplines and career stages?

Universities aren’t really in a position to make their own rules. They operate in an ecosystem comprising funders, publishers, societies, sector groups, government, and the public. Solutions will come from coordinating the activities of these groups, informed by their different priorities and perspectives.

Within the University, policies have to work across disciplines and career stages. Early career researchers are more open to experimenting with new ways of publishing or running   a research group, so the event gave them the opportunity to challenge some norms.

What are the main things that you think will bring a more positive research culture?

No one is going to argue against creating a good culture. The problem is that at the moment Universities are distracted by the need to comply with a disparate set of compliance requirements, for example, around open research, career development, research integrity, research quality, and inclusiveness. We have tried to take ownership of the agenda and incorporate these values into our culture.

At the University of Glasgow we believe that a positive culture is one in which colleagues are valued for their contributions to a research activity, in which colleagues support each other to succeed, and in which there is support to produce work that meets the highest standards of academic rigour.

We have therefore devised ways to incentivise team work, fair evaluation practices, and open research – these all lead to visibility and recognition of a researcher’s contribution. We have also been transparent about our own approaches, so that they can be challenged and therefore improved.

Did the workshop throw up any new ideas or new ways of thinking about research culture that we, as a research ecosystem, should consider? 

Two things stand out that were not in our thinking at the start of the day:

First, the importance of introducing 360-degree feedback for PIs – it’s an inclusive practice that is used in other sectors and that drives behaviour without the need for policies or sanctions.

Second, systematically tracking the career destinations of postdocs and PGRs, and making these visible. Information on destinations could be used, among other things, to reward PIs for supporting both academic and post-academic careers.

What do you think scholarly publishers can do to help to shift research culture to a more enlightened phase and how can they achieve this?

Publishers could reinforce the values that we are trying to promote locally e.g. facilitate open access publishing; provide visibility of author contributions; require data availability statements; uphold quality standards for metadata; support the publication of different output types (e.g. pre-registration reports); and identify ways of citing re-used data.

The University of Glasgow has been somewhat of a trail blazer among institutions rethinking research culture, can you give us a flavour of the sorts of things you are actively doing to promote change?

We have taken a systematic approach that is based on rewarding, supporting and celebrating the behaviours that we value. Ultimately, however, if our researchers do not see the value of these activities to their career, then we shouldn’t be asking them to do it.

First, our new academic promotion criteria include a requirement to show collegiality and a commitment to open research practices. 

Second, to honour our commitment to fair evaluation practices, anyone applying for promotion or for one of our strategic recruitment schemes is asked to provide a narrative around their four best outputs, describe the significance of each output to the field (without referring to impact factors) and indicate their contribution to the work.

Third, to raise the profile of author contribution statements we have embedded the CASRAI CRediT taxonomy in our institutional outputs repository.

Fourth, to understand how we were doing and to identify areas for action we ran a research culture survey over the summer. The survey question set is available for other institutions to use.

Finally, we introduced Research Culture Awards to celebrate colleagues who contribute to a positive research culture and have set up a Culture and Careers committee to guide the University’s actions to strengthen its culture.

Given the international and multidisciplinary nature of much scholarly work today, how do you think we can support a more global ecosystem-wide shift in research culture? 

One step at a time! In policy terms, it’s important for each discipline to identify what it regards to be best practice. Culture is not about following rules but about discussing what good practice is in the study area – that discussion should happen as early and as openly as possible, and is all the more important in large and diverse teams. That said, it would be a very good start to develop a common cross-border commitment to open access, supporting FAIR data principles, and valuing reproducible research.

What are the next steps for the University of Glasgow in reimagining research culture?

Based on the information gathered from the culture event and from the culture survey, we have developed an institutional action plan for research culture. It covers five areas: Career Development, Research Evaluation (how we assess quality), Collegiality (helping each other to succeed), Open Research, and Research Integrity. The plan will feed into our institutional strategy for 2020–2025, and into our responses to sector Concordats (Integrity; Open data; Careers). Later this year we will also publish an annual statement that brings together all our activities to support research culture.

Now you can read the event report by Tanita Casci and Elizabeth Adams on F1000Research for more details on the key themes and discussion points covered at the event and the actions identified to promote a positive research culture.