- Email: [email protected]
Nursing research programs gather strength in Australia
Nursing research programs gather strength in Australia
Nursing research programs gather strength in Australia Sally Borbasi, Flinders University Adelaide Carolyn Emden, Independent scholar Debra Jackson, University of Western Sydney
Introduction To shed light on programmatic research through direct experience is highly beneficial to nursing scholarship. Following a recent description of a successful Australian program of research centered around people’s chronic illness experience we are inspired to continue the commentary (Koch et al 2005). Koch et al’s (2005) case study reported on several ‘core elements’ they believe have contributed to the growth and effectiveness of their program. In this paper we consider some of these in light of current literature and our own challenging experiences within several Australian universities. Koch et al (2005) also makes a not too subtle distinction between dedicated research units independent of universities and research programs emanating from academia, suggesting the former are more productive. While one of the authors in the above paper, a UK scholar and nursing academic, makes interesting observations about this assertion, we contend that his UK perspective fails to capture the urgency of establishing nursing research programs in Australian universities. Consequently, we have chosen to extend the discussion about nursing research programs from the perspective of Australian academe, including comment on building productive relationships, strengthening a track record, research and practice as symbiotic processes, competitive funding strategies, and the integral role of research students. The entire commentary is located in a celebratory context of 20 years of Australian nursing education in the university sector, a context not without controversy.We give consideration to the best way ahead for the future of nursing research programs and hope our ideas spark further sharing of experiences. Key words: programmatic research, nursing research programs, academe, issues
Sally Borbasi RN MA(Ed) PhD, Associate Professor, School of Nursing & Midwifery Flinders University, Adelaide. Email: [email protected] Carolyn Emden RN MEd PhD, Independent scholar, South Australia Debra Jackson RN PhD, Associate Professor, School of Nursing, Family and Community Health, College of Social and Health Sciences, University of Western Sydney
In February this year, the Australian Council of Deans celebrated the 20th anniversary of the formal decision to move all nursing education in Australia to the tertiary sector. For many of us this is a remarkable event and leaves us wondering where those 20 years have gone. It also provides opportunity for reflection. We are prompted to recall what academics have accomplished during the 20 years to establish nursing as a discipline within the Australian academy. Not only has it meant devising, establishing and continuously upgrading undergraduate and postgraduate curricula, forging collaborative partnerships for the provision of quality clinical education, administering a range of courses and more recently, seeking an international funding base, it has also meant the production of research and scholarship to grow our knowledge base. All of this by academics who themselves have had to undergo research training within a climate that, due to shrinking resources, constant change, workforce shortages and the constant threat of a ‘return’ to hospital-based training, can only be considered difficult. In our view, that the discipline has survived 20 years in the higher education sector is cause for celebration—that academics have survived, an even greater one!
Continuing advances In the new millennium, we raised the spectre of programmatic research as a way forward for nursing in this country (Emden & Borbasi 2000). While large scale research conducted by teams and designed to impact on problems of priority interest has been the ‘norm’ for nursing in the US and many established disciplines in Australia, nursing here has traditionally found its way through the conduct of fairly isolated projects based on personal interest that ultimately have little or no impact on practice. We posed advantages and disadvantages of programmatic research and urged research students, as well as novice and experienced nursing researchers to consider how they might maximize their contribution to the advent of research programs (Emden & Borbasi 2000). Since that publication (and probably in spite of it) many nursing academics and schools of nursing have indeed established (or are beginning to establish) successful programs of research. Notwithstanding, it could be argued that much of the move to a more strategic research intent has been directed by the changing Collegian Vol 12 No 2 2005
7
research climate in Australian universities that has in itself urged the creation of more collaborative, priority driven research. More personally, it may also be a response to the unrelenting pressure to perform experienced by nurses in academia, that they seek to find collaborative ways of enhancing output. Recent debate in the Higher Education Sector (HES) of The Australian newspaper (Russell 2004:32) in which nursing schools have been openly denounced as sterile and limiting of research, further piques our resolve to continue the commentary here—a debate to which we return.
Lessons from the literature Literature since 2000 yields little in the way of advice on the creation of programs of research specifically in nursing. There is, however, a good deal of published work around research training, networking for research purposes, the nexus between education and research and translating research from research programs into practice. A recent paper by American academics (Peirce et al 2004) describes the articulation of a school of nursing’s research focus and the need for it to be congruent with the school’s culture. Peirce et al (2004) point out that while having a financial infrastructure is essential to scholarly productivity, it is not the only requirement. Academic staff members, they insist, also need to ‘understand and agree with the philosophic underpinnings from which a school’s scholarship emanates’ (p 157). In this way, the school’s mission becomes articulated with research activities and vice versa. Some literature indirectly captures salience regarding programmatic research. Articles exploring the vagaries of joint appointments for example, will often point to the vulnerability of such positions (Ogilvie et al 2004) and the challenges associated with establishing a program/s of research when faced with competing demands and unrealistic expectations (Dunn & Yates 2000). Research takes time and time is a scarcity for most academics, particularly those teaching in practice-based courses such as nursing. Indeed, even joint appointees are expected to teach and supervise students as well as conduct research. Fawcett et al (2003) draw attention to the seemingly overwhelming nature of having to teach, practise and research, and describe a project in which the three components were integrated so students were taught to conduct research while they were on clinical placement. The research contributed to the school’s program of research and was overseen by a faculty member and a postgraduate student, who then jointly wrote up the project. Academics involved in clinical teaching became involved in research and were able to incorporate the results into their teaching. In turn, students began to see research as practice and practice as research. In this way, benefits were felt both ways. Fawcett et al’s article (2003) demonstrates the potential for such innovation and various collaborations once a program of research is firmly grounded.
Lessons from experience Building productive relationships Productive, supportive relationships are the crux of programmatic research. Research programs are conceptualised and developed 8
Collegian Vol 12 No 2 2005
through the passion of researcher(s), and are sustained by the relationships that grow strong within the context of developing and sustaining the program. We suggest that relationships are the X-factor—the variable that can make the difference between success and failure in programmatic research. Processes that foster the positive growth of relationships can contribute to the productivity of the group. For example, fostering co-operative rather than competitive relationships between team members within the group can result in a more trusting working milieu. However, building relationships that result in enhanced research outcomes is not as simple as it might seem, and maintenance of relationships in the team must be privileged. There are inherent tensions between the two sectors generally involved in nursing research programs—academe and industry—that can cause difficulties in establishing and maintaining these relationships. The perceived value of research and the ability to contribute to a research project can differ greatly between the two sectors. It is not enough to have membership from both sectors just for the sake of it—research requires persistence, and bringing a project to fruition requires commitment and sustained team effort. As active researchers, we have to question team membership if all parties do not bring resources, time and research expertise to the table, particularly as intellectual property issues can arise later in the project and create further tensions. Furthermore, relationships need certain elements in order for them to be productive for all parties. These include attributes such as trust, commitment, shared values and collegiality. It can be difficult to establish these necessary attributes in certain imposed or obligatory relationships, but easier within certain contexts, such as a supportive community of researchers (Jackson in press). A community of researchers is a group or cluster of researchers including a core of experienced researchers, a number of (highly motivated) novices, and research higher degree students (Jackson in press). Together, the group focuses on a single, main area of research. The area needs to be broad enough to attract resources and research higher degree students, but narrow enough to develop a track record. As Koch et al (2005) suggest, this research concentration means that all research activities are centred around this main area. Having this research focus or ‘driving force’ (Koch et al 2005) creates synergies that have many benefits, including increased research outputs for all members, an enhanced work environment, sustained learning opportunities for novice researchers and research higher degree students, and positive interpersonal relationships between members (Jackson in press).
Strengthening a track record A major benefit of having a clear focus is that it strengthens a track record—making it easier to demonstrate expertise in a particular area, which in turn brings new opportunities, such as the ability to attract research higher degree students who want to participate in the research program. Moreover, rather than having publications around a number of areas, a clear focus to research activity means publications and grants show development of skills and knowledge in a specific area. A further benefit is that it
Nursing research programs gather strength in Australia
becomes easier to prepare grant applications because a sound knowledge is developed of current literature, new developments and key players in the field. We concur with assertions by Koch et al (2005) about strategizing to improve publication outputs. As we indicated earlier in this paper, the ‘average’ nurse academic (if there is such a creature) must juggle many demands, and it is all too easy to relegate writing for publication to the bottom of a very deep pile. Strategies to enhance publication are supported within a community approach to a research program. In this context, each member is responsible for contributing to the publication efforts of the group. We suggest a fair and reasonable expectation for a novice member is one paper a year, while more experienced writers can be expected to produce at least two. Writing for publication is a learned skill, and is one that will not be learned if there is no attempt made to practise it. By setting an achievable writing target for each member, and placing the member into a supportive writing team, peer processes help to ensure writing goals are reached.
Research and practice as symbiotic processes Koch et al (2005) point to the need to ensure research questions arise from practice. This is essential: research and practice should have a symbiotic relationship with each informing the other (Borbasi et al 2004). Despite the well-known difficulties associated with adopting research findings into practice, we must continually seek strategies for successful integration. Nursing has much strength and untapped potential; it is a discipline with the capacity to provide a wide range of health services, plus enjoys a high level of community respect and acceptance, in that people are willing to accept interventions by nurses. Nursing research therefore, should develop knowledge to extend nursing practice and identify new frontiers for nursing activity in pursuit of a healthier society. Achieving symbiosis of research and practice also requires care in establishing the (researcher) composition of a program of research. It is important to have a complementary mix of knowledge and skills. In addition to clinical knowledge, a research program ideally requires access to qualitative, quantitative and critical research expertise. Without this complementary skill mix, we suggest the sustained success of a nursing research program is doubtful. Competitive funding strategies When seeking competitive funding for programmatic research, we have found it is not enough to undertake a series of small qualitative studies. While such studies are valuable for providing rich accounts that contribute to understandings about a particular phenomenon, and can result in academic outcomes in the form of research higher degree completions and publications, they are unlikely to result in practice change or changed health outcomes. On their own, they are thus of limited use. Research projects resulting in findings that are able to be generalised have greater potential to result in benefits in terms of outcomes or practice change—an essential factor in attracting competitive funding. In our experience, for a program to achieve funding success, findings
from small qualitative studies are best used as the basis for further, larger studies. In this way, such findings do indeed have potential to ultimately influence change. For readers interested in pursuing funding for large scale qualitative research, we endorse the practical advice offered by Darbyshire in his paper ‘Qualitative research in the grant-funding jungle’ (Darbyshire 2004). Familiarity with funding sources is also essential. Researchers employed in academe generally are alerted to funding opportunities whereas nurses working in clinical areas may not have ready access to this information. In deciding on whether or not to pursue a research area, consideration needs to be given to possible sources of support. While small projects can be carried within existing resources, larger studies generally cannot be undertaken without specific funding. Koch et al (2005) draws attention to the need to be well prepared for funding opportunities. Grant application teams should be selected on the basis of performance (usually Department of Education, Science and Training outcomes ) and a demonstrated ability of members to complete a research project in a timely manner. No funding body is likely to give a large amount of money to an untried and unproven team. Again, the importance of sustained research productivity is highlighted.
Research students play an integral role Honours and research higher degree students have an integral role to play in developing a research program (an impressive feature of the Koch et al program). Not only do they contribute to the research and publication outcomes of the research community, they contribute to the creation of an energised and productive scholarly environment. Furthermore, through the social processes that operate in a program, students are presented with opportunities to build collegial and peer relationships with other scholars, affording them resources beyond their supervisors. In turn, inexperienced supervisors have the chance to develop their own supervision skills under the mentorship of more experienced research supervisors. Bachelor honours projects are particularly suited to exploratory research that will develop the program and lead to further funded research. It must be said that while the team may have the energy and resources to accommodate the occasional atypical type candidature, the vast majority of student work must have the capacity to contribute to the research program.
Longevity and notoriety as worthy goals Advancing a discipline through programmatic research is clearly a long-term venture. When we wrote our paper on the topic in 2000 we used as examples the Oxford Nursing Development Units in the UK and the Loeb Centre in New York, and lauded a major evaluation of the UK initiative (Emden & Borbasi 2000). The Koch et al (2005) case study (and its related literature) will now join other reports of nursing research programs from an Australian perspective. However, until such reports reach the main stream literature, many in the profession, and beyond, will remain unaware of nursing’s contribution to a healthier society. We believe it is imperative we keep our achievements to the fore—lest others speak for us, possibly erroneously. Collegian Vol 12 No 2 2005
9
Few nursing academics in Australian higher education will be unaware of the ‘Sarah Russell debate’ in the HES of The Australian newspaper, commencing on 24 November 2004. Basically, Russell asserted nursing schools in Australian universities were not research oriented, possessed ‘few vibrant displays of intellectual and political awareness’, and lacked the scholarly leadership required to build research cultures. Indeed, Russell questioned whether, on these grounds, nursing education should be located in universities! What are we to make of this ‘blast’ in a major national broadsheet for programmatic research in nursing? Controversy stirs strong responses and in keeping with the dictum ‘any publicity is good publicity’, subsequent letters to the Editor (Marriott & Stockhausen 2004, Chiarella & White 2004) firmly rebutted Russell’s assertions, citing evidence such as nurse-led competitive grants from the National Health & Medical Research Council, and the Australian Research Council. Details of nursing academics’ work with partners within and beyond the university were used to refute Russell’s claim that nursing schools had a ‘siege mentality’. Also, the fact that in the course of several national reviews of nursing, no recommendations have been forthcoming to remove nursing education from universities. And so the points were scored, and largely leveled as the weeks passed. While encouraging, we suggest grains of truth are generally to be found on all sides of an argument. One of us corresponded (Emden 2004), suggesting we should not ‘kid ourselves that nursing scholarship is trouble free or that nursing scholars are enchanted with their lot’. Relating this to research programs, and lest the Koch et al (2005) case study appears too easily achieved, we believe some disadvantages of programmatic research reported in 2000 still stand. These include: difficulty of matching one’s research interests and skills with those of a fixed agenda; fortitude required in establishing a track record and successfully working the grants system; and finding one’s personal career ambitions stifled by a powerful program leader whose name always appears first on publications—and who might even depart the scene, taking their program with them (Emden & Borbasi 2000). Nursing research programs, of course, are not alone in facing these challenges—as regular readers of HES will know, many disciplines are finding it hard to achieve their research goals.
Conclusion Looking ahead as to how nursing might expand and strengthen research programs, within and without universities, an ongoing UK initiative holds promise as an exemplar (Gillibrand et al 2002). Titled ‘Clinical networks for nursing research’, the initiative aims to support programmatic research by close collaboration between clinicians and higher education. Researchers work within a network of clinical areas locally, nationally and internationally, linked via interactive websites as well as seminars, conferences and newsletters. The initiative is in accord with a NHS strategy of professional interaction designed to prioritise research relevant to the needs of clinical practice and has been endorsed by the International Council of Nurses. Pivotal to the initiative are plans to improve the dissemination of evidence arising from research programs. 10
Collegian Vol 12 No 2 2005
In the final summation, nursing (like other disciplines) will be judged on its (our) research and scholarly achievements–ipso facto–the facts will speak for themselves. After 20 years experience in Australian academe, nursing researchers are well-prepared to take their place in a multi-disciplinary community of scholars seeking to develop knowledge. Some might suggest that nurses are disadvantaged when it comes to the funding ‘game’, but we disagree. On the contrary, we are well ‘up’ to the task of competing for increasingly scarce research resources. Like scholars of other disciplines, our challenge is to produce quality work that is rigorous, able to withstand critique, and capable of holding its own in an increasingly competitive research environment. The need for strategic alliances through clinical partnership is the focus of increasing attention (see for example, Novotny et al 2004, Elmuti & Kathawala 2001) and designed for mutual benefit. In speculating on fruitful ways ahead, it strikes us that the UK networking initiative has features in common with the research networks of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia, albeit with more formal and strategic intentions. Perhaps the time has come for the responsibility of establishing and maintaining viable nursing research programs to be shared by all stakeholders and interested parties: national funding bodies; universities; industry partners; professional organisations; as well as practitioners and academics. However, should this come to pass, it must be achieved without compromising intellectual academic freedom. We suggest a strategic sharing of the many infra-structure costs and human and material resources required (core elements) would help ensure that the outstanding advances already achieved by nursing research programs continue to gather strength. References Borbasi S, Jackson D, Langford R 2004 Navigating the maze of nursing research: An interactive learning adventure. Mosby, Melbourne Chiarella M, White J 2004 Letter to the Editor. The Australian Higher Education Supplement 15 December:36 Darbyshire P 2004 Qualitative research in the grant-funding jungle. Collegian 11(3):8-11 Dunn S, Yates P 2000 The role of Australian Chairs in clinical nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 31(1):165-171 Elmuti D, Kathawala Y 2001 An overview of strategic alliances. Management Decision 39(3):205-217 Emden C 2004 Letter to the Editor. The Australian Higher Education Supplement 22 December:36 Emden C, Borbasi S 2000 Programmatic research: a desirable (or despotic?) nursing strategy for the future. Collegian 7(1):32-37 Fawcett J, Aber C, Weiss M 2003 Teaching, practice and research: an integrative approach benefiting students and Faculty. Journal of Professional Nursing 19(1):17-21 Gillibrand WP, Burton C, Watkins GG 2002 Clinical networks for nursing research. International Nursing Review 49(3):188-193 Jackson D Building research by community. Journal of Advanced Nursing (in press) Koch T, Rolfe G, Kralik D 2005 Core elements of programmatic research in nursing: a case study. Collegian 12(1):7-12 Marriott R, Stockhausen L 2004 Letter to the Editor. The Australian Higher Education Supplement 15 December:36 Novotny J, Donahue M, Bhalla B 2004 The clinical partnership as strategic alliance. Journal of Professional Nursing 20(4):216-221 Ogilvie L, Strang V, Hayes P, Raiwet C, Andruski L, Heinrich M, Cullen K, Morris H 2004 Value and vulnerability: reflections on joint appointments. Journal of Professional Nursing 20(2):110-17 Peirce A, Cook S, Larson E 2004 Focusing research priorities in Schools of Nursing. Journal of Professional Nursing 20(3):156-159 Russell S 2004 Sterile nursing schools limit research. The Australian Higher Education Supplement November 24:32
Nursing research programs gather strength in Australia Sally Borbasi, Flinders University Adelaide Carolyn Emden, Independent scholar Debra Jackson, University of Western Sydney
Introduction To shed light on programmatic research through direct experience is highly beneficial to nursing scholarship. Following a recent description of a successful Australian program of research centered around people’s chronic illness experience we are inspired to continue the commentary (Koch et al 2005). Koch et al’s (2005) case study reported on several ‘core elements’ they believe have contributed to the growth and effectiveness of their program. In this paper we consider some of these in light of current literature and our own challenging experiences within several Australian universities. Koch et al (2005) also makes a not too subtle distinction between dedicated research units independent of universities and research programs emanating from academia, suggesting the former are more productive. While one of the authors in the above paper, a UK scholar and nursing academic, makes interesting observations about this assertion, we contend that his UK perspective fails to capture the urgency of establishing nursing research programs in Australian universities. Consequently, we have chosen to extend the discussion about nursing research programs from the perspective of Australian academe, including comment on building productive relationships, strengthening a track record, research and practice as symbiotic processes, competitive funding strategies, and the integral role of research students. The entire commentary is located in a celebratory context of 20 years of Australian nursing education in the university sector, a context not without controversy.We give consideration to the best way ahead for the future of nursing research programs and hope our ideas spark further sharing of experiences. Key words: programmatic research, nursing research programs, academe, issues
Sally Borbasi RN MA(Ed) PhD, Associate Professor, School of Nursing & Midwifery Flinders University, Adelaide. Email: [email protected] Carolyn Emden RN MEd PhD, Independent scholar, South Australia Debra Jackson RN PhD, Associate Professor, School of Nursing, Family and Community Health, College of Social and Health Sciences, University of Western Sydney
In February this year, the Australian Council of Deans celebrated the 20th anniversary of the formal decision to move all nursing education in Australia to the tertiary sector. For many of us this is a remarkable event and leaves us wondering where those 20 years have gone. It also provides opportunity for reflection. We are prompted to recall what academics have accomplished during the 20 years to establish nursing as a discipline within the Australian academy. Not only has it meant devising, establishing and continuously upgrading undergraduate and postgraduate curricula, forging collaborative partnerships for the provision of quality clinical education, administering a range of courses and more recently, seeking an international funding base, it has also meant the production of research and scholarship to grow our knowledge base. All of this by academics who themselves have had to undergo research training within a climate that, due to shrinking resources, constant change, workforce shortages and the constant threat of a ‘return’ to hospital-based training, can only be considered difficult. In our view, that the discipline has survived 20 years in the higher education sector is cause for celebration—that academics have survived, an even greater one!
Continuing advances In the new millennium, we raised the spectre of programmatic research as a way forward for nursing in this country (Emden & Borbasi 2000). While large scale research conducted by teams and designed to impact on problems of priority interest has been the ‘norm’ for nursing in the US and many established disciplines in Australia, nursing here has traditionally found its way through the conduct of fairly isolated projects based on personal interest that ultimately have little or no impact on practice. We posed advantages and disadvantages of programmatic research and urged research students, as well as novice and experienced nursing researchers to consider how they might maximize their contribution to the advent of research programs (Emden & Borbasi 2000). Since that publication (and probably in spite of it) many nursing academics and schools of nursing have indeed established (or are beginning to establish) successful programs of research. Notwithstanding, it could be argued that much of the move to a more strategic research intent has been directed by the changing Collegian Vol 12 No 2 2005
7
research climate in Australian universities that has in itself urged the creation of more collaborative, priority driven research. More personally, it may also be a response to the unrelenting pressure to perform experienced by nurses in academia, that they seek to find collaborative ways of enhancing output. Recent debate in the Higher Education Sector (HES) of The Australian newspaper (Russell 2004:32) in which nursing schools have been openly denounced as sterile and limiting of research, further piques our resolve to continue the commentary here—a debate to which we return.
Lessons from the literature Literature since 2000 yields little in the way of advice on the creation of programs of research specifically in nursing. There is, however, a good deal of published work around research training, networking for research purposes, the nexus between education and research and translating research from research programs into practice. A recent paper by American academics (Peirce et al 2004) describes the articulation of a school of nursing’s research focus and the need for it to be congruent with the school’s culture. Peirce et al (2004) point out that while having a financial infrastructure is essential to scholarly productivity, it is not the only requirement. Academic staff members, they insist, also need to ‘understand and agree with the philosophic underpinnings from which a school’s scholarship emanates’ (p 157). In this way, the school’s mission becomes articulated with research activities and vice versa. Some literature indirectly captures salience regarding programmatic research. Articles exploring the vagaries of joint appointments for example, will often point to the vulnerability of such positions (Ogilvie et al 2004) and the challenges associated with establishing a program/s of research when faced with competing demands and unrealistic expectations (Dunn & Yates 2000). Research takes time and time is a scarcity for most academics, particularly those teaching in practice-based courses such as nursing. Indeed, even joint appointees are expected to teach and supervise students as well as conduct research. Fawcett et al (2003) draw attention to the seemingly overwhelming nature of having to teach, practise and research, and describe a project in which the three components were integrated so students were taught to conduct research while they were on clinical placement. The research contributed to the school’s program of research and was overseen by a faculty member and a postgraduate student, who then jointly wrote up the project. Academics involved in clinical teaching became involved in research and were able to incorporate the results into their teaching. In turn, students began to see research as practice and practice as research. In this way, benefits were felt both ways. Fawcett et al’s article (2003) demonstrates the potential for such innovation and various collaborations once a program of research is firmly grounded.
Lessons from experience Building productive relationships Productive, supportive relationships are the crux of programmatic research. Research programs are conceptualised and developed 8
Collegian Vol 12 No 2 2005
through the passion of researcher(s), and are sustained by the relationships that grow strong within the context of developing and sustaining the program. We suggest that relationships are the X-factor—the variable that can make the difference between success and failure in programmatic research. Processes that foster the positive growth of relationships can contribute to the productivity of the group. For example, fostering co-operative rather than competitive relationships between team members within the group can result in a more trusting working milieu. However, building relationships that result in enhanced research outcomes is not as simple as it might seem, and maintenance of relationships in the team must be privileged. There are inherent tensions between the two sectors generally involved in nursing research programs—academe and industry—that can cause difficulties in establishing and maintaining these relationships. The perceived value of research and the ability to contribute to a research project can differ greatly between the two sectors. It is not enough to have membership from both sectors just for the sake of it—research requires persistence, and bringing a project to fruition requires commitment and sustained team effort. As active researchers, we have to question team membership if all parties do not bring resources, time and research expertise to the table, particularly as intellectual property issues can arise later in the project and create further tensions. Furthermore, relationships need certain elements in order for them to be productive for all parties. These include attributes such as trust, commitment, shared values and collegiality. It can be difficult to establish these necessary attributes in certain imposed or obligatory relationships, but easier within certain contexts, such as a supportive community of researchers (Jackson in press). A community of researchers is a group or cluster of researchers including a core of experienced researchers, a number of (highly motivated) novices, and research higher degree students (Jackson in press). Together, the group focuses on a single, main area of research. The area needs to be broad enough to attract resources and research higher degree students, but narrow enough to develop a track record. As Koch et al (2005) suggest, this research concentration means that all research activities are centred around this main area. Having this research focus or ‘driving force’ (Koch et al 2005) creates synergies that have many benefits, including increased research outputs for all members, an enhanced work environment, sustained learning opportunities for novice researchers and research higher degree students, and positive interpersonal relationships between members (Jackson in press).
Strengthening a track record A major benefit of having a clear focus is that it strengthens a track record—making it easier to demonstrate expertise in a particular area, which in turn brings new opportunities, such as the ability to attract research higher degree students who want to participate in the research program. Moreover, rather than having publications around a number of areas, a clear focus to research activity means publications and grants show development of skills and knowledge in a specific area. A further benefit is that it
Nursing research programs gather strength in Australia
becomes easier to prepare grant applications because a sound knowledge is developed of current literature, new developments and key players in the field. We concur with assertions by Koch et al (2005) about strategizing to improve publication outputs. As we indicated earlier in this paper, the ‘average’ nurse academic (if there is such a creature) must juggle many demands, and it is all too easy to relegate writing for publication to the bottom of a very deep pile. Strategies to enhance publication are supported within a community approach to a research program. In this context, each member is responsible for contributing to the publication efforts of the group. We suggest a fair and reasonable expectation for a novice member is one paper a year, while more experienced writers can be expected to produce at least two. Writing for publication is a learned skill, and is one that will not be learned if there is no attempt made to practise it. By setting an achievable writing target for each member, and placing the member into a supportive writing team, peer processes help to ensure writing goals are reached.
Research and practice as symbiotic processes Koch et al (2005) point to the need to ensure research questions arise from practice. This is essential: research and practice should have a symbiotic relationship with each informing the other (Borbasi et al 2004). Despite the well-known difficulties associated with adopting research findings into practice, we must continually seek strategies for successful integration. Nursing has much strength and untapped potential; it is a discipline with the capacity to provide a wide range of health services, plus enjoys a high level of community respect and acceptance, in that people are willing to accept interventions by nurses. Nursing research therefore, should develop knowledge to extend nursing practice and identify new frontiers for nursing activity in pursuit of a healthier society. Achieving symbiosis of research and practice also requires care in establishing the (researcher) composition of a program of research. It is important to have a complementary mix of knowledge and skills. In addition to clinical knowledge, a research program ideally requires access to qualitative, quantitative and critical research expertise. Without this complementary skill mix, we suggest the sustained success of a nursing research program is doubtful. Competitive funding strategies When seeking competitive funding for programmatic research, we have found it is not enough to undertake a series of small qualitative studies. While such studies are valuable for providing rich accounts that contribute to understandings about a particular phenomenon, and can result in academic outcomes in the form of research higher degree completions and publications, they are unlikely to result in practice change or changed health outcomes. On their own, they are thus of limited use. Research projects resulting in findings that are able to be generalised have greater potential to result in benefits in terms of outcomes or practice change—an essential factor in attracting competitive funding. In our experience, for a program to achieve funding success, findings
from small qualitative studies are best used as the basis for further, larger studies. In this way, such findings do indeed have potential to ultimately influence change. For readers interested in pursuing funding for large scale qualitative research, we endorse the practical advice offered by Darbyshire in his paper ‘Qualitative research in the grant-funding jungle’ (Darbyshire 2004). Familiarity with funding sources is also essential. Researchers employed in academe generally are alerted to funding opportunities whereas nurses working in clinical areas may not have ready access to this information. In deciding on whether or not to pursue a research area, consideration needs to be given to possible sources of support. While small projects can be carried within existing resources, larger studies generally cannot be undertaken without specific funding. Koch et al (2005) draws attention to the need to be well prepared for funding opportunities. Grant application teams should be selected on the basis of performance (usually Department of Education, Science and Training outcomes ) and a demonstrated ability of members to complete a research project in a timely manner. No funding body is likely to give a large amount of money to an untried and unproven team. Again, the importance of sustained research productivity is highlighted.
Research students play an integral role Honours and research higher degree students have an integral role to play in developing a research program (an impressive feature of the Koch et al program). Not only do they contribute to the research and publication outcomes of the research community, they contribute to the creation of an energised and productive scholarly environment. Furthermore, through the social processes that operate in a program, students are presented with opportunities to build collegial and peer relationships with other scholars, affording them resources beyond their supervisors. In turn, inexperienced supervisors have the chance to develop their own supervision skills under the mentorship of more experienced research supervisors. Bachelor honours projects are particularly suited to exploratory research that will develop the program and lead to further funded research. It must be said that while the team may have the energy and resources to accommodate the occasional atypical type candidature, the vast majority of student work must have the capacity to contribute to the research program.
Longevity and notoriety as worthy goals Advancing a discipline through programmatic research is clearly a long-term venture. When we wrote our paper on the topic in 2000 we used as examples the Oxford Nursing Development Units in the UK and the Loeb Centre in New York, and lauded a major evaluation of the UK initiative (Emden & Borbasi 2000). The Koch et al (2005) case study (and its related literature) will now join other reports of nursing research programs from an Australian perspective. However, until such reports reach the main stream literature, many in the profession, and beyond, will remain unaware of nursing’s contribution to a healthier society. We believe it is imperative we keep our achievements to the fore—lest others speak for us, possibly erroneously. Collegian Vol 12 No 2 2005
9
Few nursing academics in Australian higher education will be unaware of the ‘Sarah Russell debate’ in the HES of The Australian newspaper, commencing on 24 November 2004. Basically, Russell asserted nursing schools in Australian universities were not research oriented, possessed ‘few vibrant displays of intellectual and political awareness’, and lacked the scholarly leadership required to build research cultures. Indeed, Russell questioned whether, on these grounds, nursing education should be located in universities! What are we to make of this ‘blast’ in a major national broadsheet for programmatic research in nursing? Controversy stirs strong responses and in keeping with the dictum ‘any publicity is good publicity’, subsequent letters to the Editor (Marriott & Stockhausen 2004, Chiarella & White 2004) firmly rebutted Russell’s assertions, citing evidence such as nurse-led competitive grants from the National Health & Medical Research Council, and the Australian Research Council. Details of nursing academics’ work with partners within and beyond the university were used to refute Russell’s claim that nursing schools had a ‘siege mentality’. Also, the fact that in the course of several national reviews of nursing, no recommendations have been forthcoming to remove nursing education from universities. And so the points were scored, and largely leveled as the weeks passed. While encouraging, we suggest grains of truth are generally to be found on all sides of an argument. One of us corresponded (Emden 2004), suggesting we should not ‘kid ourselves that nursing scholarship is trouble free or that nursing scholars are enchanted with their lot’. Relating this to research programs, and lest the Koch et al (2005) case study appears too easily achieved, we believe some disadvantages of programmatic research reported in 2000 still stand. These include: difficulty of matching one’s research interests and skills with those of a fixed agenda; fortitude required in establishing a track record and successfully working the grants system; and finding one’s personal career ambitions stifled by a powerful program leader whose name always appears first on publications—and who might even depart the scene, taking their program with them (Emden & Borbasi 2000). Nursing research programs, of course, are not alone in facing these challenges—as regular readers of HES will know, many disciplines are finding it hard to achieve their research goals.
Conclusion Looking ahead as to how nursing might expand and strengthen research programs, within and without universities, an ongoing UK initiative holds promise as an exemplar (Gillibrand et al 2002). Titled ‘Clinical networks for nursing research’, the initiative aims to support programmatic research by close collaboration between clinicians and higher education. Researchers work within a network of clinical areas locally, nationally and internationally, linked via interactive websites as well as seminars, conferences and newsletters. The initiative is in accord with a NHS strategy of professional interaction designed to prioritise research relevant to the needs of clinical practice and has been endorsed by the International Council of Nurses. Pivotal to the initiative are plans to improve the dissemination of evidence arising from research programs. 10
Collegian Vol 12 No 2 2005
In the final summation, nursing (like other disciplines) will be judged on its (our) research and scholarly achievements–ipso facto–the facts will speak for themselves. After 20 years experience in Australian academe, nursing researchers are well-prepared to take their place in a multi-disciplinary community of scholars seeking to develop knowledge. Some might suggest that nurses are disadvantaged when it comes to the funding ‘game’, but we disagree. On the contrary, we are well ‘up’ to the task of competing for increasingly scarce research resources. Like scholars of other disciplines, our challenge is to produce quality work that is rigorous, able to withstand critique, and capable of holding its own in an increasingly competitive research environment. The need for strategic alliances through clinical partnership is the focus of increasing attention (see for example, Novotny et al 2004, Elmuti & Kathawala 2001) and designed for mutual benefit. In speculating on fruitful ways ahead, it strikes us that the UK networking initiative has features in common with the research networks of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia, albeit with more formal and strategic intentions. Perhaps the time has come for the responsibility of establishing and maintaining viable nursing research programs to be shared by all stakeholders and interested parties: national funding bodies; universities; industry partners; professional organisations; as well as practitioners and academics. However, should this come to pass, it must be achieved without compromising intellectual academic freedom. We suggest a strategic sharing of the many infra-structure costs and human and material resources required (core elements) would help ensure that the outstanding advances already achieved by nursing research programs continue to gather strength. References Borbasi S, Jackson D, Langford R 2004 Navigating the maze of nursing research: An interactive learning adventure. Mosby, Melbourne Chiarella M, White J 2004 Letter to the Editor. The Australian Higher Education Supplement 15 December:36 Darbyshire P 2004 Qualitative research in the grant-funding jungle. Collegian 11(3):8-11 Dunn S, Yates P 2000 The role of Australian Chairs in clinical nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 31(1):165-171 Elmuti D, Kathawala Y 2001 An overview of strategic alliances. Management Decision 39(3):205-217 Emden C 2004 Letter to the Editor. The Australian Higher Education Supplement 22 December:36 Emden C, Borbasi S 2000 Programmatic research: a desirable (or despotic?) nursing strategy for the future. Collegian 7(1):32-37 Fawcett J, Aber C, Weiss M 2003 Teaching, practice and research: an integrative approach benefiting students and Faculty. Journal of Professional Nursing 19(1):17-21 Gillibrand WP, Burton C, Watkins GG 2002 Clinical networks for nursing research. International Nursing Review 49(3):188-193 Jackson D Building research by community. Journal of Advanced Nursing (in press) Koch T, Rolfe G, Kralik D 2005 Core elements of programmatic research in nursing: a case study. Collegian 12(1):7-12 Marriott R, Stockhausen L 2004 Letter to the Editor. The Australian Higher Education Supplement 15 December:36 Novotny J, Donahue M, Bhalla B 2004 The clinical partnership as strategic alliance. Journal of Professional Nursing 20(4):216-221 Ogilvie L, Strang V, Hayes P, Raiwet C, Andruski L, Heinrich M, Cullen K, Morris H 2004 Value and vulnerability: reflections on joint appointments. Journal of Professional Nursing 20(2):110-17 Peirce A, Cook S, Larson E 2004 Focusing research priorities in Schools of Nursing. Journal of Professional Nursing 20(3):156-159 Russell S 2004 Sterile nursing schools limit research. The Australian Higher Education Supplement November 24:32