Gender-Based Research Capacity Building as Transitional Process within the South African Higher Education Context: Towards A Community of Practice

Marais, Christel; Bryun, Karien du; Downing, Charlené; Mahomed, Fathima Essop; Naile, Idah; Matsheke, Onica; Dicks, Emsie; Omoruyi, Osayuwamen; Maharajh, Reshma; Kearney, Jeanette; Grobler, Christa

doi:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n23p97

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For all researchers and across our three disciplines, relationships were important in the mediating of successful research environments . Positive research relationships were characterised by mutual trust and respect, whereas others described them as friendships that take time to develop . Mutually supportive relationships seemed to be particularly relevant to ECRs in terms of developing confidence, self‐esteem and research capacity and making identity transitions .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The 42 papers represented the following disciplines: medical education ( n = 4, 10%); education ( n = 18, 43%), and medicine ( n = 20, 48%) . There were 26 (62%) qualitative studies, 11 (26%) quantitative studies and five (12%) mixed‐methods studies (Table ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Identities were also referenced in relation to early, mid‐career or senior researchers. Academic staff working in academic institutions needed to develop a sense of researcher identity, belongingness, self‐efficacy for research and autonomy to increase their satisfaction, competence and research activity . For first‐career practitioners (i.e.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What really matters for successful research environments? A realist synthesis

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ContextResearch environments, or cultures, are thought to be the most influential predictors of research productivity. Although several narrative and systematic reviews have begun to identify the characteristics of research‐favourable environments, these reviews have ignored the contextual complexities and multiplicity of environmental characteristics.ObjectivesThe current synthesis adopts a realist approach to explore what interventions work for whom and under what circumstances.MethodsWe conducted a realist synthesis of the international literature in medical education, education and medicine from 1992 to 2016, following five stages: (i) clarifying the scope; (ii) searching for evidence; (iii) assessing quality; (iv) extracting data, and (v) synthesising data.ResultsWe identified numerous interventions relating to research strategy, people, income, infrastructure and facilities (IIF), and collaboration. These interventions resulted in positive or negative outcomes depending on the context and mechanisms fired. We identified diverse contexts at the individual and institutional levels, but found that disciplinary contexts were less influential. There were a multiplicity of positive and negative mechanisms, along with three cross‐cutting mechanisms that regularly intersected: time; identity, and relationships. Outcomes varied widely and included both positive and negative outcomes across subjective (e.g. researcher identity) and objective (e.g. research quantity and quality) domains.ConclusionsThe interplay among mechanisms and contexts is central to understanding the outcomes of specific interventions, bringing novel insights to the literature. Researchers, research leaders and research organisations should prioritise the protection of time for research, enculturate researcher identities, and develop collaborative relationships to better foster successful research environments. Future research should further explore the interplay among time, identity and relationships.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation