Roles, requirements and autonomy of academic researchers
[Corrections made on 15th June 2022, after first online publication: The affiliation details for the second author has been corrected in this version.]
Abstract
As an indicator of nations' prosperity and economic competitiveness, research impacts the mounting roles and requirements placed upon academic researchers. Internationally, researchers are expected to effectively operate in the fast-changing and demanding research environment. Such effectiveness corresponds mainly to their ability to establish international and interdisciplinary collaborations, secure internal and external grants, and most importantly deliver tangible research outputs. As such, this desired research excellence impacts researchers' academic appointments, recognitions and promotions. Driven by research productivity and pursuit of academic excellence, researchers' individual autonomy may become restricted. This work is based on (a) an international study exploring research productivity within higher education institutions across 15 countries and (b) a relevant international literature review. The voices of 32 participants portray competencies required from and requirements placed upon academic researchers at their respective universities. Findings show that the role of academic researchers is changing and the requirements pose challenges to researchers' autonomy. The research productivity quest along with opportunity-driven decisions may not only restrict researchers' autonomy but also compromise their academic integrity.
1 INTRODUCTION
Academic researchers have long occupied the dual role of educators and researchers; however, in the past decades, their role as researchers has overshadowed their role as educators. This is especially true for research-intensive universities worldwide, as globalization and internationalization, the massification and marketization of universities, the commercialization of research, the wave of assessment and accountability, and technological advancements together have significantly impacted researchers' roles globally (Kyvik, 2013). As time progresses, academic researchers' roles are expanding and so too are external and internal expectations regarding their performance. In fact, academic researchers across the world are expected to establish international and interdisciplinary collaborations in order to engage in joint research ventures, secure research funds for their projects, and produce research outputs in accredited journals. Achievement of such expectations is equivalent to fulfilment of requirements defining researchers' academic appointments and promotions. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the quest to achieve highly demanding research productivity requirements may not only restrict researchers' autonomy but also compromise their academic integrity.
2 INSIGHTS INTO ACCOUNTABILITY AND ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS
This section provides insights into institutional control in the allocation of tasks increased in tandem with the assessment of academic performance. The limitations of institutional control and accountability of universities to their governments' requirements is showcased. As Carvalho and Diogo (2017) explain the implementation of institutional autonomy is both dynamic and ambiguous; universities often have autonomy in some areas yet are under the yoke of state control in others.
transformation of the relationships between academics and universities are linked to the increased institutional autonomy of universities. A first consequence of the empowerment of universities as institutional actors deals with the reduced autonomy of academics in the division of labor and the allocation of tasks. (p. 30)
In assessments related to research accountability, particular kinds of research are rated as more valuable than other kinds of research. Peer-reviewed publications in top-tier scholarly journals and academic presses are seen as the “gold standard” and perceived as essential to academic success; publications in lesser-known or more professionally focused outlets gain limited favour. Similarly, research that is supported through external grants is rated more highly than research that does not require such funding. (p. 15)
is conceived as a producer of mass education as well as research services and knowledge transfers in what governments today call the competitive, knowledge-based global economy. In this managerial model, the university is accountable, through its senior management teams, to government and must meet its specific goals and standards of provision. (Shore & Wright, 2004, p. 104)
On the surface, the above-mentioned cult of accountability can be associated with transparency and a rightful expectation of taking responsibility for work done. However, the obsession with accountability, which essentially acts as a policing mechanism, fuels a sense of mistrust, limits researchers' autonomy and ultimately affects quality of researchers' performance. O'Neill (2002), referring to the culture of trust and accountability, accurately states that “Plants don't flourish when we pull them up too often to check how the roots are growing” (p. 19). In addition, the assessment of academic researchers is not based on autonomous institutional standards but rather on criteria related to stakeholders' particular interests, which may be aligned with political and economic governmental policies and may be influenced by corporate interests in a competitive educational market. In practice, the audits and other forms of scrutiny pressure academic researchers to meet performance indicators that have little to do with the quality of their work.
Shore and Wright (2004) also state that the measures for accountability and quality assurance in universities have only a minimal impact on improving quality and instead work well as a means of introducing novel forms of governmentality, bureaucratic rationality and management control. According to Shore and Wright, audit procedures act against university autonomy and academic independence, as “universities are not accountable to the government but to the public in general and that it is the public duty of academics to maintain academic freedom and intellectual independence” (p. 111).
3 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: AUTONOMY OF ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS
In order to comprehend roles and autonomy of academic researchers, we need to consider the interconnectivity of individual and institutional autonomy in which this research study is grounded. In fact, it is impossible to talk about researchers' individual autonomy without recognizing its connection to institutional autonomy. As indicated in the literature (e.g., Etomaru et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2007), the notion of autonomy can be considered at institutional and individual levels alike. Although the terminology used by scholars may slightly differ—from institutional and individual freedom (Aberbach & Christensen, 2017) to scientific autonomy (Steinmetz, 2018) and scientific freedom (Ruphy & Bedessem, 2016)—most concur that individual and institutional autonomy are interconnected (Aberbach & Christensen, 2017; Bergan, 2002).
Individual autonomy as an intellectual freedom (Moshman, 2017) refers to freedom of individual academics, while institutional autonomy accounts for the entire higher education institution (Armbruster, 2008). Individual autonomy ensures academic researchers' right and freedom to decide on investigation topics, research objectives, research methods and research execution without external influences. Institutional autonomy in turn refers to universities' self-administration and self-governance, including for both financial and academic matters (Etomaru et al., 2016). This implies freedom from interference by the state or any other external governing bodies on an institution's organization, governance, funding arrangements, income generation for institutional sustainability, recruitment of staff, admission of students, as well as teaching and research activities. Having said that, it is important to recognize that public universities are funded by the government which, without warranties, can be the tool of indirect or direct influence. The government subsidy system can operate due to a maintenance relationship in which the government decides which research activities merit funding—some may be vetoed or others may be moved in a specific direction should the project be approved. Another way is to finance funding organizations, which operate with independent experts who evaluate universities' project applications.
According to Kori (2016), institutional autonomy in Europe stems from the Magna Charta Universitatum and the Bologna Declaration, which both address the principles of institutional democratic autonomy. Nonetheless, we must be mindful that institutional autonomy alone does not ensure individual autonomy; some democratic countries with proclaimed autonomous institutions do not always promote principles and practices that reflect academic freedom. Having said that, autonomous higher education institutions need to follow professional standards and be accountable to public bodies and their respective communities. Individual academic researchers' autonomy, in turn, needs to be framed by scientific standards and ethical conduct (All European Academies [ALLEA], European University Association [EUA] & Science Europe, 2019).
As indicated in the joint statement of the ALLEA, EUA and Science Europe (2019), any society's development depends on scientific discoveries that advance knowledge and technologies. Through their work, researchers promote progress; however, to do so, they need freedom to inquire and share research results. In other words, they need individual autonomy supported by or grounded in institutional autonomy. It is important to note that in most countries, the constitution contains the warranties of institutional autonomy as well as autonomy of individual researchers. Consequently, the level of the rule of law and democratization determines the measure of academic freedom (Rónay, 2018). Although many principles frame institutional and individual researchers' autonomy, often these principles are not as evident or functional in practice, which has implications for academic researchers. For instance, Soeparwata (2016) reports that although higher education institutions contribute to knowledge generation, traditional higher education systems have been also accused of being inefficient, ineffective, wasteful of public resources and in some cases of low quality.
Universities' and academic researchers' autonomy has been always vital, yet “sweeping changes to how universities are governed and funded over recent decades have recast both the meaning and manifestations of autonomy within the university” (Woelert et al., 2020, para. 1). Carvalho and Diogo (2017) emphasize that universities are increasingly seen as any other organization, being managed with a top-down management. The authors note that academic autonomy at the organizational level is expressed by academics' influence in decision-making related to institutional goals, administration, management and other activities. Therefore, it is fair to assume that academics occupying management positions or having established good relationships with the management are more influential and thus feel more confident regarding their professional autonomy. Carvalho and Diogo support this assumption, stating that in “reconfiguring universities' governance and management models, internal segmentation seems to be a relevant variable when analysing professional autonomy, given that some sub-groups within the system perceive their autonomy as decreasing, while others acknowledge the maintenance of their influence” (p. 13). As evident, autonomy of universities and academic independence are influenced by the changing academic research enterprise regarded as an indicator of nations' prosperity and economic competitiveness. This reality in turn manifests in the mounting roles and requirements placed upon academic researchers who are expected to operate effectively in the fast-changing and challenging research environment.
4 RESEARCH APPROACH AND PROCESS
This study is based on a larger qualitative study that adopted an interpretive research approach through which “meaning is disclosed, discovered, and experienced. The emphasis is on sense making, description, and detail. … Therefore, meaning-making is underscored as the primary goal of interpretive research in the understanding of social phenomena” (Given, 2008, p. 465). Prior to undertaking this research study, ethical clearance was secured from the university leading the project. The evidence for this work is based on the responses of 32 participants who volunteered to complete an open-ended questionnaire (developed using SurveyMonkey software). At the time of anonymous data collection (September 2018), participants were members of the Comparative Education Society in Europe. Participants' responses are connected to the relevant scholarly literature.
The pool of 32 participants involved mainly females (71%) and included 23 professors at various ranks, six doctoral or postdoctoral students, and three research managers. As members of the Comparative Education Society in Europe, they were affiliated with varied scholarly disciplines and research entities. The participants represented the following 15 countries across five continents: Australia, Canada, China, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Spain, United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.
The participants reported on competencies required from and requirements placed upon academic researchers at their respective universities and beyond. In addition, the study gathered information about research productivity demands and associated challenges. Data collected within a cloud-based software were transferred to an Excel file and systematically analysed following qualitative research methods (Patton, 2014). The collected data were carefully read, coded, categorized and then organized into themes. Before coding data, a list of a priori codes was crafted based on the study's objectives. An inductive approach then was followed moving from detailed data (text based on responses of each participant) to codes and themes. As the entries of each participant were read, new emerging codes were added to the list of a priori codes. After coding all the responses of the 23 participants, the list included 38 codes, 16 priori codes and 22 emerging codes. Comparable codes then were grouped and organized into a manageable number of seven themes that reflect participants' voices in relation to the study's focus. As Stringer (2007) indicates, “All analysis is an act of interpretation, but the major aim in analysis is to identify information that clearly represents the perspective and experience of the stakeholding participants” (p. 98).
Guba and Lincoln (1989) note that the credibility of qualitative research can be assessed by the extent to which findings are accurate for the group under investigation—in this case, academic researchers. To provide credibility and authenticity to the interpretation of data, verbatim quotes from participants' responses are incorporated within the text (Roller & Lavrakas, 2015). Although the present study's findings cannot be generalized, they can be informative and prompt further reflection on this topic.
5 RESEARCH FINDINGS
This section provides meaningful interpretation based on the seven themes that emerged from the systematic data analysis process. The developed themes were categorized into three subsections to address the aim of this paper; namely, to demonstrate that the quest to achieve highly demanding research productivity requirements not only restricts researchers' autonomy but may also compromise their academic integrity. The first subsection, entitled Going Beyond One's Discipline and National Border, provides participants' perceptions about the competencies academic researchers are expected to have. The section portrays researchers' changing roles that require them to broaden the scope of their research. The second subsection, Requirements Placed Upon Academic Researchers, focuses on key research activities (publishing, securing funding, networking) expected from researchers as a measure of their accomplishment. Such requirements are presented in conjunction with constraints they may pose on academic researchers' autonomy and integrity. The third subsection, Challenges in Fulfilling Research Requirements, provides reasons why the participants believe it is difficult to meet the research productivity demands.
5.1 Going beyond One's discipline and National Border
In addition to the usual research methods skills, researchers should have country expertise in a range of societies. Increasingly there is an expectation that researchers approach societies other than their own with a degree of respect (i.e., none of the Western imperialism and condescension there was in the past). (United Kingdom)
Exchanging knowledge with research partners, developing multicultural knowledge, developing in-depth knowledge in human rights and ethics, knowledge related to global development issues, communication skills, [foreign] language skills. (Poland)
Times changed; researchers need to be aware of their cultural biases, speak multiple languages, and be aware of ethical issues but also of different procedures and expectations when it comes to conduct research. (Italy)
Using languages other than the mother tongue; preferably more than one foreign language; being at home in at least two different cultures; having connections with the international community. (Hungary)
Most participants' responses indicate that the researcher role is increasingly performed in an international context and the range of competencies needed in the current research environment is more extensive than the competencies they had previously acquired. In addition, the participants reported that their theoretical expertise within a specialized field of study was not enough for them to show scholarly competence. It was evident that research productivity activities such as international collaborations and engagement in cross-national projects require excellent communication skills, cross-cultural sensitivity and understanding of cultural differences. This includes adaptability to complexities of different contexts with their own set of local customs, practices and regulations.
The scholarly literature echoes the participants' voices regarding changing researchers' expectations. Currently, academic researchers need to be aware of the world outside of their own context, and thus familiar with diverse cultures, social norms and worldviews in order to conduct quality research within multicultural communities (Niemczyk, 2018). Jensen et al. (2019) report that researchers are required to go beyond national borders and their narrow disciplinary frameworks and look for holistic approaches to solve social issues. The transformation of the research environment is also evident in higher demand for multidisciplinary approaches considered by Hickerson (2019) as the new century's most demanding change, along with cross-disciplinarity (Klein, 2020) and trans- and post-disciplinarity (Kravchenko, 2020). According to Guenther (2020), the last decade brought significant changes (amongst them digitalization and ways of knowledge sharing) that force scholars to leave their so-called ivory towers.
5.2 Requirements placed upon academic researchers
Publish, publish, publish, and then PUBLISH in accredited journals—preferably in internationally accredited, ISI-journals. … Nothing else even comes close to this demand. (South Africa)
At my institution, associate professors (likewise full professors) are public employees hence bound to “teaching productivity” by contract, yet with pressing demands on research productivity in terms of number of publications (the highest the better) and type of publications (e.g., publications in foreign languages are valued more than those in national languages, publications in [nationally] ranked top journals are valued more than those in other journals, book chapters or books). … Moreover, there is an increasing demand for partaking in collaborative, international research projects that are externally funded. (Italy)
The constructed trend to publish to show scholarly competence may result in an increase in fraudulent research activity and the associated compromise of academic integrity and scientific community. Participants provided some examples of unethical activities observed in known research communities. For instance, choosing publication outlets based on financial incentives, deciding authorship based on power-position as opposed to the actual contribution made, and using students' theses for publication purposes without students' consent. The findings seem to indicate that not all researchers adhere to regulations related to ethical scholarly publishing practices and thus academic integrity. It goes without saying that higher education institutions must establish an environment that promotes compliance to academic integrity through stewardship, proper training, and clear policies.
Barnes (2019) warns of the consequences associated with the pressures to publish, which may influence researchers to choose topics and publication outlets based only on the probability to earn more citations. Similarly, Lawrence (2002) notes that the pressure to publish may lead to unethical authorship practices and other academic misconduct. To that end, some researchers may engage in unethical behaviour and become co-authors, even without substantial contribute to a written piece; produce an abundance of articles based on a modest dataset; use students' data instead of conducting their own studies; or compromise quality of the research process at the expense of getting data fast (Niemczyk & Rossouw, 2019).
Several scholars are alarmed by artificially generated publishing activity leading to negative results and restriction of academic freedom. According to Te'eni (2019), researchers' choice of topics, methods of analysis, publication outlets and research collaborators are all under the umbrella of academic freedom. Nathan and Shawkataly (2019) emphasize that publishing pressures are associated mainly with institutional earnings. Some institutions are willing to pressure researchers to publish their papers in areas outside their interests in order to increase the number of citations. As a result, the metrics of productivity and the contribution to an institution's rankings increase at the expense of scientific autonomy.
External funding is difficult due to the competitive nature of the process. (Cyprus)
Research productivity is measured by a number of grant applications, PhD supervisions, publications, subjects delivered, courses (non-standard) delivered, money brought in, international collaborations, co-authored publications, and multi-institutional grants. (Australia)
Referring to social science researchers, McGinn et al. (2019) claim that the current research climate has heightened expectations for researchers to secure research grants. As a result, researchers experience anxiety, loss of confidence and a lack of trust in the system.
Academic researchers often rely on financial support to progress with their research projects. To secure financial support, academic researchers must consider if their area of investigation aligns with the institutional agenda (Aberbach & Christensen, 2017; Hedgecoe, 2016; Steinmetz, 2018). This means that if a researcher explores topics not supported by the institutional agenda, the institutional management may decline to support it financially. In such a case, researchers must locate external financial support outside their own institutions, which involves increased competition. In addition, Kyvik (2013) reports that “Collaboration in research has become a prerequisite for external funding, which puts demands on the capacity to network with research colleagues across disciplines, institutions and national borders, and to negotiate research proposals and manage complex research projects” (p. 536).
Woelert et al.'s (2020) investigation of how academics from various disciplines at one Australian university understand and experience autonomy in their own research found that practical realization of autonomy is closely associated with having adequate levels of resources (including financial) and time. The authors reported that academics' practical autonomy was restricted by increasing levels of bureaucratization and the increasingly narrow thematic focus and strategic orientation of the major funding schemes.
With the expectation from universities to make a direct contribution to national economic growth, governments across countries implemented new policies to steer university research in a more strategic direction, demanding that universities seek additional research funding from external sources and develop closer links with the private sector (Kyvik, 2013).
Very often, you have to write articles for a project in a certain way (to make it fit to your research group, to meet the “profile” and promises made in funding applications) although you would prefer to have it written differently. (Germany)
Not always doing the research I want, but have to compromise for what calls and funding is available. (Cyprus)
It can be presumed that independent research or knowledge creation occurs when academic researchers undertake meaningful (for them) projects without external impositions to alter their work for commercial purposes. As evident in this work and the relevant scholarly literature, externally imposed funding priorities may offer researchers resources at the expense of their autonomy. Aberbach and Christensen (2017) argue that the market-based funding dependencies from external sources can strongly affect research productivity. Externally funded research projects can be restricted by funders' ethical points of view, which may require avoiding politically sensitive topics or topics that can shame part of society (Hedgecoe, 2016). This means that research projects possibly could be enhanced or hindered by the resources of external sources. As Aberbach and Christensen (2017) warn government or private donors may interfere with the research process and internal university governance of resources.
Government's policies on increased access and participation rates and meeting the developmental needs of the country may be in jeopardy as a result of the steady decline in the funding of higher education. The extent of government involvement in higher education's autonomy and academic freedom may also lead to the loss of universities' identity and ability to determine their directions, roles and functions. (p. 423)
Diversity of stakeholders and third stream income enhance the former, while academic remuneration reform and academic entrepreneurialism go beyond institutional autonomy and bolster academic freedom by strengthening the weight and significance of academic and intellectual pursuits. (p. 153)
5.3 Challenges in fulfilling research requirements
[Research demands] are very difficult to meet mainly because of the lack of time and resources as well as the very long peer-review process and poor proofreading support. (Russia)
It can be difficult. Sometimes you would like to write on something but you do not have the time to do it because of the administrative tasks, the search for money and new jobs consume a lot of time. … Or, you do not have enough time to actually use all the empirical material collected just because project cycles are so short. (Germany)
Basically time—we do not get allocated enough time for our teaching demands, hence we take it from our research time, so we publish less. Also meetings take too long; there's a lot of institutional inefficiency. (Netherlands)
Participants also expressed that competing with colleagues for excellence and funding affected their sense of professional success, since securing funding is seen as a measure of accomplishment. One participant noted that aiming to accomplish research productivity expectations is not only difficult but also dangerous for researchers' well-being: “Most academics who take these instructions [to be productive] seriously, are getting sick/ill sooner than ever before in the history of mankind—especially cancer and cancer-related illnesses” (South Africa).
The data suggest that fulfilling research productivity requirements can be difficult and even perilous for academic researchers. Yet, in many instances, academic researchers may feel obliged to meet the requirements in order to achieve their desired academic agenda and avoid feeling left behind or perceived as substandard researchers by their colleagues and research community.
6 CLOSING REMARKS
the decrease in organizational autonomy does not result directly in a perception of loss in professional autonomy to all professionals in academic careers. Certain sub-groups with positional power can actually perceive the maintenance, or even an increase, in their professional autonomy. (p. 12)
This also provides evidence that the way academic autonomy is perceived may depend on different factors, including the position academics occupy within the institutional structure.
This study confirms that the complex and demanding research requirements are somewhat consistent regardless of researchers' geographical location and academic standing. Regarding institutional expectations, it is evident that research initiatives reach beyond disciplines and national borders. In fact, the researchers' roles are expanding and being increasingly performed in international contexts. In addition, the complex and costly research activities force researchers to secure financial sources (Chinchilla-Rodríguez et al., 2018). Yet, financial sources are limited and do not match the number of requests made. In short, researchers are expected to generate more knowledge with less financial support. This reality is alarming as it is proven that emphasizing the quantity of research outputs can compromise their quality (Higginson & Munafò, 2016; Leisyte & Dee, 2012). In addition, publishing pressures are also detrimental to researchers' well-being and academic freedom (Carson et al., 2013; Higginson & Munafò, 2016).
It is important to note that most higher education academies worldwide are public institutions that rely on government funding, which empowers governments to influence institutional decisions and by extension researchers' autonomy. In some cases, such power can be misused to serve specific political agendas. The same situation is reflective of other external funding sources that provide financial support with specific return expectations. Scholarly literature (e.g., Carvalho & Diogo, 2017; Niemczyk & Rossouw, 2019) showed that the increase in institutional financial autonomy often comes at a price of relinquishing some control to financial supporters. Because academic researchers often require financial support for their projects, they must comply with specific criteria outlined in the call for funding, which may not align with researchers' research plans or preferences. Since the funds are limited and there is much competition, failing to meet even partial criteria may result in a rejection of the application and force researchers to look for external funds. In alignment with the findings of this study, some scholars (e.g., Aberbach & Christensen, 2017; Rónay & Niemczyk, 2020) draw attention to dependence on external funders and warn that although external funding sources enhance institutional and academic autonomy, the funders often have specific expectations on their agenda that may also limit academic autonomy.
It is evident that researchers find it challenging to meet expectations to publish and secure funding for their research projects. As reported earlier, the pressure to publish may affect researchers' opportunity-based decision making, which in turn may lead to a surplus of articles based on a modest dataset, excessive use of projects conducted by students, and other unethical decisions. Researchers seeking employment, promotion, tenure or professional appraisal dependent on a track record of tangible outputs may feel trapped in the research productivity race (Rónay & Niemczyk, 2020). Moreover, expansion of knowledge production makes it more difficult and time consuming to keep up with the research literature (Kyvik, 2013).
Academic researchers' roles have changed in tandem with institutional, governmental and societal expectations. Researchers must compete in a rapidly changing research environment; however, their research performance must occur through quality practices, supportive leadership and healthy competition—not at the expense of researchers' autonomy. The findings call for an evaluation of growing expectations of researchers; research productivity demands and practices; and rewards of research excellence. Considering research productivity as an income generator is undesirable from many angles, and this needs to be reconsidered by governments and academic institutions. Ethical quality research productivity takes time and rushing the process may lead to lower quality and compromise integrity. The quality can drop even further when incentives are introduced to motivate academic researchers to generate tangible outputs. There is a risk that some academic researchers may become motivated primarily by financial interests rather than a desire to address social issues. We need to experiment with new ways of assessing research performance to place value on quality as opposed to quantity, to protect the well-being of researchers, and to safeguard ethical productivity and scientific autonomy.
In sum, our findings underscore the global reach of the investigated phenomena as researchers from very different higher education and legal environments had the same or similar impressions. Researchers' responsibility in the field of researching academic freedom and autonomy is to echo scholars' voices, explore reasons and establish proposals to mitigate consequences. To support this endeavour, there is a need for further empirical research that can untangle the complexities between research productivity requirements and the explicit impact they have on practical aspects of academic researchers' autonomy. Considering this study's findings, a suggestion for future research would be to focus on ways academic researchers attempt to balance research performance and academic autonomy. It is important to further examine the extent to which existing research requirements impact researchers' decisions to pursue their preferred research agenda. Are these decisions mainly opportunity-driven, and if so, what are the associated consequences? Which specific practices would allow researchers to fulfil research requirements while maintaining academic autonomy and integrity?Maintaining academic freedom in the face of new and emerging threats requires vigilance and mechanisms appropriate to an age of global science and connectivity. It also requires an understanding of the fundamental interconnectedness between academic freedom, trust in science and scholarship, and scholarly integrity. (p. 8247)
