Dataset Information

Partnering with postdocs: a library model for supporting postdoctoral researchers and educating the academic research community.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A mutually beneficial need exists between postdoctoral scholars (postdocs) who want to grow their science communication, networking, and teaching skills and those in the general health sciences research community who want to learn more about specialized topics. Recognizing this need, interdepartmental teams at two public universities began offering postdocs a teaching opportunity at their health sciences libraries, which serve as discipline-neutral learning spaces for researchers.

Case presentation

At the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) and Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), postdocs are invited to submit talk proposals on "how to do something" related to the health sciences. Selected postdoc speakers conduct one-hour talks, get science communication and teaching support, have their talks uploaded to YouTube, and receive feedback from attendees.

Conclusions

Postdoc participants appreciated being able to participate in this program, and attendees strongly indicated that the talks are of value. At VCU, surveys of the 25 talks from 2015-2018 showed that 91% of attendees believed they had a better understanding of the topic because of their attendance, and 85% planned to use the knowledge they gained. More than a year after their talks, several postdocs across both institutions informed the coordinators that they were subsequently contacted for advice or further discussion, with 2 postdocs stating that it helped them with job opportunities. This model can be easily adapted at other health sciences libraries to benefit their academic communities.

SUBMITTER: Gau KH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7441904 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Sustaining collaborations between community-based organization leaders and academic researchers in community-engaged research (CEnR) in the service of decreasing health inequities necessitates understanding the collaborations from an inter-organizational perspective. We assessed the perspectives of community leaders and university-based researchers conducting community-engaged research in a medium-sized city with a history of community-university tension. Our research team, included experts in CEnR and organizational theory, used qualitative methods and purposeful, snowball sampling to recruit local participants and performed key informant interviews from July 2011-May 2012. A community-based researcher interviewed 11 community leaders, a university-based researcher interviewed 12 university-based researchers. We interviewed participants until we reached thematic saturation and performed analyses using the constant comparative method. Unifying themes characterizing community leaders and university-based researchers' relationships on the inter-organizational level include: 1) Both groups described that community-engaged university-based researchers are exceptions to typical university culture; 2) Both groups described that the interpersonal skills university-based researchers need for CEnR require a change in organizational culture and training; 3) Both groups described skepticism about the sustainability of a meaningful institutional commitment to community-engaged research 4) Both groups described the historical impact on research relationships of race, power, and privilege, but only community leaders described its persistent role and relevance in research relationships. Challenges to community-academic research partnerships include researcher interpersonal skills and different perceptions of the importance of organizational history. Solutions to improve research partnerships may include transforming university culture and community-university discussions on race, power, and privilege.

Project description:Background:There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields. Methods:We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental. Results:In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher. Conclusion:We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted 'insufficient supervision'. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.

Project description:BackgroundEmerging evidence that meaningful relationships with knowledge users are a key predictor of research use has led to promotion of partnership approaches to health research. However, little is known about health system experiences of collaborations with university-based researchers, particularly with research partnerships in the area of health system design and health service organization. The purpose of the study was to explore the experience and perspectives of senior health managers in health service organizations, with health organization-university research partnerships.MethodsIn-depth, semi-structured interviews (n = 25) were conducted with senior health personnel across Canada to explore their perspectives on health system research; experiences with health organization-university research partnerships; challenges to partnership research; and suggested actions for improving engagement with knowledge users and promoting research utilization. Participants, recruited from organizations with regional responsibilities, were responsible for system-wide planning and support functions.ResultsResearch is often experienced as unhelpful or irrelevant to decision-making by many within the system. Research, quality improvement (QI) and evaluation are often viewed as separate activities and coordinated by different responsibility areas. Perspectives of senior managers on barriers to partnership differed from those identified in the literature: organizational stress and restructuring, and limitations in readiness of researchers to work in the fast-paced healthcare environment, were identified as major barriers. Although the need for strong executive leadership was emphasized, "multi-system action" is needed for effective partnerships.ConclusionCommon approaches to research and knowledge translation are often not appropriate for addressing issues of health service design and health services organization. Nor is the research community providing expertise to many important activities that the healthcare system is taking to improve health services. A radical rethinking of how we prepare health service researchers; position research within the health system; and fund research activities and infrastructure is needed if the potential benefits of research are to be achieved. Lack of response to health system needs may contribute to research and 'evidence-informed' practice being further marginalized from healthcare operations. Interventions to address barriers must respond to the perspectives and experience of health leadership.

Project description:Background: The challenge of research funding constraints has brought to bear enormous pressure on researchers. Research productivity is relevant to prestige and career progression of academic staff. However, this study aimed to explore significant challenges associated with researchers' productivity and the impact of non-funding of research in Nigerian research and tertiary institutions. Methods: This study adopted a qualitative exploratory design involving academics at various research and tertiary institutions across the six geographical regions in Nigeria. A semi-structured questionnaire was distributed electronically to all participants who consented to take part in this study. Exactly 4,159 questionnaires were administered and 2,350 were completely filled and returned. Pearson correlation matrices with logistic regression were used for data analysis and are presented in frequencies and percentages. Results: On challenges faced by respondents, 42.98% reported a lack of research funding, 17.11% mentioned brain drain challenge while 8.85% indicated a lack of motivation. Of the 23,927 publications reported, the number of those in sciences, engineering, and medical sciences averaged 9.6, 11.5, and 9.5 respectively. The average number of publications by women (10.8) was more than by men (9.7). Lecturers had the highest average research publication number (11.8) followed by researchers (10.2) and others (3.9). Men had the highest (11.9) average number of conferences compared to women (9.2). Participants in engineering had an average number of 13.8 conferences per respondents followed by those in education (11.2), sciences (11.1), and 10.9 for those in agricultural sciences. The result revealed a negative significant correlation between research publication and academic qualification at p < 0.01. Positive significant correlation was observed between research productivity and discipline at p < 0.05. Findings show that the combined influence of the independent variables on research productivity was significant using linear regression analysis. Conclusions: The failure to prioritize research has resulted in underdevelopment in Nigeria. It is therefore imperative that the federal government prioritize research and establish a functional Special Research Trust Fund to oversee research funding in Nigeria.