Lessons from the 1996 Research Assessment Exercise

Research capability in doctoral training

Rationale:Doctoral training should provide insight into the evolution of research capability in nursing.

Methods:Research designs were evaluated from abstracts of 204 theses extracted from the ASLIB database, 1983–2002. Most were from PhD/DPhil degrees, but a few were Professional Doctorates.

Findings:‘Educational’ and ‘organisational’ settings dominated, indicating their sustained popularity. A total of 11 methodological frameworks were noted, with ‘Ethnography’, ‘Social history’, ‘Work environment’ and ‘Grounded theory’ being the most popular. ‘Interviews’ with individuals and ‘Questionnaire survey’ were easily the most popular of 28 different research tools/techniques.

Comparing abstracts from 1997–2002 with those from 1983–1996 identified significant changes in methodologies and methods used. The frequency of ‘Phenomenology’, ‘Work environment’ and ‘Grounded theory’ methodologies increased. The ‘Patient led’ framework appeared for the first time, albeit in just a few theses. The incidence of ‘Ethnography’ declined. Some methods only appeared for the first time during the 1990s, e.g. ‘Focus groups’. Of the methods, ‘Interviews’ increased substantially but ‘Questionnaires’ decreased slightly. In terms of developing clinical research, we noted an increased frequency of ‘All experimental’ methods. Multiple methods, used in 71% of theses overall, increased in incidence during the late 1990s, a change that was significantly associated with ‘post-1992’ universities. Over time, there was a significant increase in the number of methodologies and methods used, per thesis.

Conclusions:This study documents the breadth of research designs used by students researching nursing. It provides evidence for an evolution of designs with an increasing diversity that indicates a growing maturity of nursing research culture.

The performance of nursing in the research stakes: Lessons from the field

There have been many complaints in recent years that nursing research has not developed as fully as it should have, together with a suggested explanation that this is largely due to a lack of success in obtaining funding. This lack of success has been attributed to a domination of funding bodies by doctors, who, it is claimed, do not understand or value nursing research. We have examined such claims in two ways. First, a brief historical overview shows that, although there is still a way to go, nursing research has, in recent years, produced useful information, and that this refutes the idea that it is completely undeveloped. Second, a report on a case study on the progress of 217 grant applications to a regional R&D office in the UK challenges the suggested explanation. The limited number of funded proposals from nurses was not due to medical prejudice. Rather it was due to very few nurses putting forward proposals and to many of those proposals being withdrawn voluntarily, usually after the receipt of insensitively-worded referees' commentaries. When nursing proposals were pursued vigorously, they received higher scientific ratings than medical-led proposals, and were, proportionately, more likely to gain funding.

Developing your research profile

This is a pragmatic paper, aimed at nurse teachers and lecturers interested in developing their research profile but unsure of how to go about it. It addresses a range of issues including valuing your past experience, writing for publication, time manage ment, learning from others, considering a sideways move, finding an academic mentor, becoming a reviewer, attending conferences, and seeking research funding. The paper concludes by emphasizing that developing a research profile is a long process, but th at there is a growing interest in having a more clearly defined career pathway to support aspiring nurse researchers.

Mental health nursing research: the contemporary context

While the need to develop and conduct research has been prominent in mental health nursing for some time, the current funding climate in tertiary institutions has created even more pressure for research outputs. The Research Assessment Exercise is well ingrained in UK institutions, New Zealand is about to enter the second round of the Performance-based Research Funding model, and Australia is committed to a Research Quality Framework. There is much to learn from nursing departments in those countries that have already been part of the process. This paper will present a content analysis of what mental health nursing research is currently being published in nursing journals and discuss the implications of the research assessment exercises on its future. Those mental health nursing articles sampled in the study revealed a shift beginning towards more consumer-focused research was occurring but that there was a need for more research into the effectiveness of specific mental health nursing interventions. Most of the articles also reported on small-scale research. It concludes that research needs to be more clinically orientated and less profession-orientated. It also suggests a need to focus on larger-scale studies possibly situated within a collaborative research programme. These programmes need to be more collaborative both cross-institutional and cross-disciplinary.

A Systematic Review of Worldwide Cancer Nursing Research

The aim of this study was to assess the cancer nursing research papers published in the past decade; identify their characteristics in terms of country of origin, participants, settings, diagnostic foci, and methodologic choices; and evaluate their quality. A systematic review was carried out of all published papers in the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature between the years 1994 and 2003, using the keywords "cancer," "nursing," and "research." A total of 619 papers met inclusion criteria and were evaluated by 5 researchers. Almost half the papers were derived from the United States (49.1%), followed by the UK, Sweden, Canada, and Australia. In more than half of the published papers (52.2%), health professionals (mostly nurses) were the studies' participants. Also, much of the published research used patients with mixed diagnosis, or patients with breast or hematologic cancers. Two-thirds of the studies were quantitative, whereas most studies were descriptive in nature. The quality of both quantitative and qualitative studies was low, with only a small percentage meeting the highest quality criteria. Studies reporting funding and those published in journals with an impact factor showed a higher quality score than those not reporting funding or not published in journals with an impact factor. Cancer nursing research is still in a developmental stage, although it has made a considerable contribution to the evidence base of the discipline. A number of issues need to be tackled before we improve our output, such as organizational or workforce issues, infrastructure support, funding, and methodologic challenges.

Exploratory factor analysis of the research and development culture index among qualified nurses

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This paper presents the exploratory factor analysis of a rating instrument for assessing the strength of organizational Research and Development (R&D) culture.

BACKGROUND

Despite nursing's limited research capacity, the discipline is capitalizing upon opportunities to become involved in research and is making strong progress. Within the context of the debate on nursing research capacity, the R&D Culture Index was developed as a means of appraising R&D culture within health care organizations.

DESIGN

Factor analysis was carried out on data collected from 485 nursing staff. The method of extraction was Principal Components Analysis with oblique rotation.

METHODS

The Index was developed from the findings of qualitative research conducted with NHS staff. Eighteen items, encompassing the main themes from the data, were initially included in the Index. This pilot instrument was distributed to nursing staff within three different types of NHS Trust. Factor analysis resulted in rejection of two items and the analysis was repeated using the remaining 16 items.

RESULTS

Three latent factors were extracted accounting for 58.0% of the variance in the data. The factors were: R&D Support, describing the perceived support within the working environment for R&D activity; Personal R&D Skills and Aptitude, describing an individual's perception of their ability towards R&D activity; and Personal R&D Intention, describing an individual's willingness to engage in R&D activity. Each factor had good internal reliability, as did the overall index.

CONCLUSION

The R&D Culture Index provides an efficient means of assessing the strength of an organization's R&D culture in a way that captures the role of the individual practitioner and the organizational environment.

RELEVANCE TO PRACTICE

These findings suggest that the continuing promotion of R&D within health care organizations is dependent upon a multi-faceted approach that addresses the learning needs of the organization as well as those of the individual practitioners.

Research and its relationship to nurse education: focus and capacity

Nursing, midwifery and health visiting together form the largest professional workforce within the NHS, and the clinical activities of nurses and the outcomes of these interventions are, therefore, of critical importance to patients. In consequence, adequate preparation for practice should include evidence-based nursing interventions, education to evaluate such evidence, understanding of research methodology and exposure to educators who are engaged in clinical research and can thus act as appropriate models for learners who may aspire to clinical research careers in the future. More broadly, the achievement of these goals requires a continuing strategy to develop capacity for the understanding, undertaking, dissemination and utilisation of research within the profession. This paper argues that nursing is currently in a weak position with regard to creating a future workforce which will have this capacity. Examination of two mental health journals illustrates the lack of focus on clinical research within the profession, whilst a key Government document setting out the future of nursing contains little reference to the role of R&D either in clinical practice or the preparation of the workforce. A recent publication setting out a potential strategy for research in nursing contains considerable hope for the future, but the profession will wish to remain watchful to ensure that the document is translated into action to facilitate a future for clinical nursing research appropriate to the needs of patients.

Developing high-quality research in midwifery: lessons learned from the midwifery research database, MIRIAD

BACKGROUND

Research in midwifery is a relatively new development in many countries, and as a consequence it can be difficult to identify ongoing and completed research, to network with other researchers in similar fields, and to plan appropriately to develop research and research capacity. This paper describes the establishment of the UK Midwifery Research Database, MIRIAD, which aimed to address these problems.

METHOD

Funding from the Department of Health (England) supported the establishment of MIRIAD in 1988. Systems and procedures were set in place to collect, store, analyse and disseminate information about ongoing and completed research in midwifery. Six detailed reports were published. MIRIAD was closed in 1999 as a result of lack of ongoing funding.

KEY FINDINGS

466 studies were registered with MIRIAD, with start dates ranging from 1974 to 1998. The majority of studies examined clinical topics. A wide range of research approaches were used. Studies were supported by a range of sources, including employers and national funding agencies. There were many examples of high-quality, peer-reviewed, and externally funded studies which can be used to inform practice. Issues raised by some studies, however, included concerns about research quality, inadequacy of some supervision, low rate of publication, and inconsistency in gaining ethics committee approval.

CONCLUSIONS

Research in midwifery in the UK has matured over the past 25 years. It still faces many challenges, including the need to maintain quality and to gain more national funding support. Lessons have also been learned about the need for quality in research information systems. Ongoing assessment of the growth and direction of research in midwifery is recommended, possibly through monitoring of the generic NHS database, the National Research Register (NRR), to inform strategic developments in research and research capacity at national; regional and local levels.

Developing the research capacity of departments of nursing and midwifery based in higher education: a review of the literature

The purpose of this literature review is to identify those factors which might affect the research capacity of departments of nursing based in higher education, and to make recommendations based upon the findings to enable departments to develop their capacity to undertake research. There is a dearth of published research which directly addresses this issue and therefore publications were reviewed which related to: the impact on nurse educators of the integration of nursing into higher education; nurse educators' attitudes towards research and their research role; analysis of the results of the 1992 and 1996 Research Assessment Exercises and commentaries on them; developing research within nursing generally; and factors affecting research productivity within nursing and related disciplines. The papers were analysed according to the following themes: academic qualifications; research skills; time available for research; motivation to undertake research; a culture of research; subject specialization; subject areas for research; research quality; and a nursing research council. The conclusions are first, that whilst there is a dearth of literature which relates directly to research capacity development in academic departments of nursing, there is much advice which can be drawn upon. Second, the article concludes that the factors affecting research capacity development are numerous and complex and it is not something which can only take place at the departmental level. There are also issues which require consideration nationally, as well as factors which depend upon the individual academic, and these impact upon the research capacity of academic departments of nursing. The factors are summarized at the end of the paper in the conclusions and recommendations.

Nursing and the research assessment exercise: past, present and future

In this paper we examine approaches to undertaking nursing research and building research capacity in higher education institutions in the United Kingdom (UK). First we review some of the main responses in the literature to the last two Research Assessment Exercises (RAE), then we report findings from a small study of nursing departments which entered the last RAE and finally we speculate on the likely future of nursing research in the light of recent education and health policy. We suggest that many of the difficulties experienced are an effect of contradictory health and education policies and rival ways of assessing research performance. Nursing education is caught in the 'pincer movement' of stringency in both sectors. In addition, the challenges of the RAE and the necessity to earn income from contracting with National Health Service (NHS) education and training consortia for teaching represent an outworking of two rival views of the role of higher education, broadly an elitist view and one that sees higher education as a supplier of the workforce needs of industry. In addition to this, the NHS R&D (research and development) strategy provides an alternative arena for collaboration, funding and reputation to that constructed by the RAE.