why research is culture

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The New Analytics of Culture

• Matthew Corritore,
• Amir Goldberg,
• Sameer B. Srivastava

Culture is easy to sense but hard to measure. The workhorses of culture research—employee surveys and questionnaires—are often unreliable.

Studying the language that employees use in electronic communication has opened a new window into organizational culture. New research analyzing email, Slack messages, and Glassdoor postings are challenging prevailing wisdom about culture.

Some of the findings are (1) cultural fit is important, but what predicts success most is the rate at which employees adapt as organizational culture changes over time, (2) cognitive diversity helps teams during ideation but hinders execution, and (3) the best cultures encourage diversity to drive innovation but are anchored by shared core beliefs.

What email, Slack, and Glassdoor reveal about your organization

Idea in Brief

The problem.

Culture is easy to sense but difficult to measure. The workhorses of culture research—employee surveys and questionnaires—are often unreliable.

A New Approach

Studying the language that employees use in electronic communication has opened a new window into organizational culture. Research analyzing email, Slack messages, and Glassdoor postings is challenging prevailing wisdom about culture.

The Findings

• Cultural fit is important, but what predicts success most is the rate at which employees adapt as organizational culture changes over time.
• Cognitive diversity helps teams during ideation but hinders execution.
• The best cultures encourage diversity to drive innovation but are anchored by shared core beliefs.

A business’s culture can catalyze or undermine success. Yet the tools available for measuring it—namely, employee surveys and questionnaires—have significant shortcomings. Employee self-reports are often unreliable. The values and beliefs that people say are important to them, for example, are often not reflected in how they actually behave. Moreover, surveys provide static, or at best episodic, snapshots of organizations that are constantly evolving. And they’re limited by researchers’ tendency to assume that distinctive and idiosyncratic cultures can be neatly categorized into a few common types.

• MC Matthew Corritore is an assistant professor of strategy and organization at McGill’s Desautels Faculty of Management.
• AG Amir Goldberg is an associate professor of organizational behavior at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business. He and Sameer B. Srivastava codirect the Berkeley-Stanford Computational Culture Lab.
• SS Sameer B. Srivastava is an associate professor and the Harold Furst Chair in Management Philosophy and Values at the University of California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. He and Amir Goldberg codirect the Berkeley-Stanford Computational Culture Lab.

Partner Center

Research Culture

Research culture is a broad topic that can encompass the behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes, and norms of research systems ( Royal Society, 2018 ). Science Europe is committed to opening up the discussion on research culture to create the best possible research ecosystem where researchers thrive.

Why is research culture important?

In the European Research Area (ERA), and globally, there are a diversity of approaches to research culture that influence the way that science is governed, funded, performed, and communicated. Research Culture also impacts upon the career pathways of researchers and research-associated positions. Importantly, the culture that pervades any given research system influences the quality of its outputs and outcomes.

At long last, discussions on research culture are gathering speed. This offers an opportunity to reflect upon the links between culture, processes, and policies that govern research systems on one hand, and the practices of those that are involved in the scientific endeavour on the other. A holistic view is needed when considering reforms to areas such as Research Assessment Systems and Open Science, acknowledging the interconnected nature of these key themes.

What are the current aims and objectives of Science Europe?

Research culture touches upon the core business of Science Europe’s Member Organisations as it is linked to the quality of research, the contribution of science to knowledge generation, the role of science in and for society, and the sustainability of research systems as a whole. Science Europe and its member organisations will work towards defining and implementing positive cultures that foster sustainable research ecosystems where research and researchers thrive.

What is Science Europe doing to achieve these aims?

Science Europe’s activities on research culture focus on the core values that we put at the centre of scientific research and ensure that they are reflected in policies and practices. Science Europe aims to:

• Inspire the reappraisal of institutional approaches and values to support the diversity and sustainability of research systems. In doing so, lead and facilitate reflections on the boundaries, degree of self-organisation, and values of the current and future European R&I system and in the ERA.
• Develop recognition frameworks that support quality-driven and healthy research cultures. This is done by promoting policies and practices that recognise, reward, and incentivise actions and behaviours that affirm the core values that underpin research systems.
• Foster research recognition systems that value a broader array of research activities and outputs, as well as supporting a larger variety of career pathways for researchers and research-related staff.
• Promote coherence between policy areas to improve the research ecosystem and conditions for researchers within it, such as: Open Science; access to Research Infrastructures; research integrity; promotion of equality, diversity, and inclusivity (EDI); recognition of methodological rigour; transparency; the reproducibility of scientific results; and research assessment processes.

The Science Europe holistic approach to research culture will help implementing specific actions in the areas above to improve the overall conditions for research activity and for researchers.

Statement on Research Culture - Empowering Researchers with a Thriving Research System

The new statement on Research Culture envisages an ERA that focusses on the quality of research and its processes, supports scientific freedom, and promotes social diversity and inclusion, acknowledging that these conditions will, in turn, foster a productive research system.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 21 July 2021

Five ways team leaders can improve research culture

• Zoë Ayres   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3805-2722 1  

Nature Reviews Materials volume  6 ,  pages 758–759 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

7686 Accesses

5 Citations

158 Altmetric

Metrics details

Good mental health and wellbeing of research staff and students lead to better science: it is time to reflect on what we can do as team leaders to create a positive research culture.

Mental health concerns in academia are at an all-time high. With approximately one in two PhD students experiencing common mood disorders such as anxiety and/or depression 1 , 2 (which is six times the rate for the general population) 2 , and with 78% of UK research staff showing moderate to severe signs of mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic , it is clear something needs to change. These statistics are reflected within our postdoctoral community, with 51% of postdocs having considered leaving science altogether due to mental-health issues related to their work 3 . With such a high incidence of mental health concerns, providing support for team members is essential. But as team leaders we can often be left wondering — what can we actually do to help?

The first and most important step for us as team leaders is to acknowledge is that mental health concerns are not just brought about by biological factors and that the onus for staying well is not just on the individual. A person may have pre-existing mental illnesses, but a toxic working environment can make it difficult even for the most resilient to survive. In short: the working environment we create as team leaders can impact the mental wellness of those around us. By acknowledging this fact, we can work towards building and reinforcing a positive research culture where every member of our team can thrive.

There are many environmental factors that can add stress and lead to worsened mental wellbeing for students and staff. For example, financial struggles, feeling like an impostor (the ‘impostor phenomenon’), being subject to bullying and harassment, or simply feeling like a ‘bad scientist’ because science is not going to plan, can all have negative effects. And whilst one person’s experience may be different to another’s, there are often common themes that emerge that we, as team leaders, have influence over.

Foster collaboration, not competition

In a report by the Wellcome Trust , 78% of researchers said that high levels of competition in their workplace had created unkind and aggressive research conditions. This is not conducive to maintaining mental wellness: it can lead people to working long hours in a ‘race to the bottom’ to stay ‘ahead’ of others 4 . This is damaging both to mental and physical health, with overwork being a key contributor to occupational stress 5 . It is therefore important that as team leaders we encourage our staff and students to take time off and not routinely overwork. The culture of overwork is often reinforced passively — if we never take breaks, our team will infer they cannot either. As team leaders we must therefore lead by example (where we can). Further, a highly competitive environment can make it difficult for our staff and students to speak to one another about how they are feeling and reach out to their colleagues when they need support. For those of you that wish to use competition as a motivator, consider having your team compete with external groups, rather than internally, to create a more positive working environment.

Put the conversation on the agenda

One of the biggest issues with mental health is that we simply do not talk about it due to stigma, and yet talking can often help those struggling. As team leaders we can be creative in how we start off the conversation, for example incorporating papers on research culture, like the report by the Wellcome Trust ‘What researchers think about the culture they work in’, into our journal clubs, creating a safe space for discussion. Further, simply taking the time to discuss with our staff and students about how they are actually getting on and how they are feeling at the start of one-to-one meetings, rather than jumping straight into discussing science, can be beneficial. Sometimes it is small but simple changes in our behaviour that can have long-term impact on the wellbeing of those around us.

Address bullying and harassment

Unfortunately bullying and harassment are rife in science, with around one in five PhD students experiencing one or both 6 . It is important to understand that bullying can be perpetuated by team leaders who enable toxic behaviour to happen. It is our responsibility to understand our own biases (we all have them) and call out discriminatory behaviour within our own research groups by members of our team. If we do not do this, we risk alienating vulnerable team members. Feeling isolated and targeted can have huge mental health implications. Visible reporting routes are also essential to support our staff and students: if they don’t exist, we must advocate for them to be introduced at our institutions.

Seek training

As team leaders, we have typically been elevated to our position based on scientific merit and our publication record. Very few of us have training in mental health support (something that universities and institutions need to work on). In the meantime, seeking out training for ourselves is key. By developing skills to respond to a student in crisis we not only help the student but also ourselves: it can be incredibly stressful to manage a crisis situation with no training. Having knowledge of the resources that are available to support staff and students, be it referrals to medical support or talking therapy, can also help our staff and students get the rapid support they require.

Don’t be afraid to be vulnerable

It can be all too easy for people to internalize the (incorrect) notion that to be a scientist is to ‘think and not feel’ 7 , which leads to increased impostor feelings, a reduced sense of belonging and ultimately impacts mental health. Leading a team, we can often think that strength lies in appearing infallible, but our staff and students benefit from seeing us as real people behind the scientific work that we do. If we don’t show on occasion how we feel, and that we are human, when others are struggling it can be hard for them to seek help and turn to us for support.

As a final note — undoubtedly we will get things wrong. Mental health is complex, and we are learning too. It is important to recognize that even as team leaders we cannot control everything, particularly when it comes to the personal lives and experiences of our team members. Instead we can realize the positive impact we can have on the day-to-day workings of our laboratories and research groups. We can set boundaries. We can decide which behaviours get reinforced and which do not. We can choose to be become more informed on mental health topics to support our staff and students. By realizing the power that resides with us and in the example we set, we can make a difference and work towards making science a safer, more inclusive space for everyone. It starts with us.

Levecque, K. et al. Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Res. Policy 46 , 868–879 (2017).

Article   Google Scholar  

Evans, T. et al. Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nat. Biotechnol. 36 , 282–284 (2018).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Woolston, C. Postdocs under pressure: ‘can I even do this any more?’ 587 , 689–692 (2020).

Smith, D. K. The race to the bottom and the route to the top. Nat. Chem. 12 , 101–103 (2020).

Winefield, A. H. & Jarrett, R. Occupational stress in university staff. Int. J. Stress Manag. 8 , 285–298 (2001).

Woolston, C. PhDs: the tortuous truth. Nature 575 , 403–406 (2019).

Makarova, E. et al. The Gender Gap in STEM fields: the impact of the gender stereotype of math and science on secondary students’ career aspirations. Front. Educ. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00060 (2019).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Birmingham, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoë Ayres .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Related links.

Report by the Wellcome Trust: https://wellcome.org/reports/what-researchers-think-about-research-culture

Signs of mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.smarten.org.uk/covid-19-study.html

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ayres, Z. Five ways team leaders can improve research culture. Nat Rev Mater 6 , 758–759 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00357-1

Download citation

Published : 21 July 2021

Issue Date : September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00357-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Rebuilding research.

• Stefan Howorka

Nature Reviews Chemistry (2021)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Schools & departments

What is Research Culture?

Research cultures are built on the values, expectations and behaviours that shape how we support, deliver and communicate our research.

We build and maintain our research cultures through the actions, interactions, behaviours and processes that we all encounter and perform while undertaking or supporting research.  These cultures are felt and influenced by us at individual, team, department, university and wider discipline level.  Research cultures can be experienced differently at each level and within each discipline, which is why our approach acknowledges that we experience and contribute to multiple research cultures, and that a University the size of Edinburgh will have many research cultures.

In recent years funders and policy makers have increased their interest in research culture, a broad agenda that covers individual and organisational culture; equality, diversity and inclusion; management practices and policies; research ethics and integrity; open research; research impact and how all these areas inter-relate with each other.  Although the term 'research culture' has gained prominence recently, University of Edinburgh has been engaged in improving aspects of our research culture for many years, for example through our committments to our Athena SWAN action plans and our  Open Research Roadmap .

Research Cultures Action Plan

In February 2023, we published our first University of Edinburgh Research Cultures Action Plan.  More details can be found at the link below.

• Research Cultures Action Plan

Funder & Policy Maker Views on Research Cultures

• UKRI | Research & Innovation Culture
• Wellcome | Research Culture
• Royal Society | Research Culture
• The Academy of Medical Sciences | Research Culture
• Vitae | Research Culture Framework
• Russell Group | Realising our Potential
• Universities UK | Research standards, ethics and culture
• UKRIO | Research Culture

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley Open Access Collection

What really matters for successful research environments? A realist synthesis

Rola ajjawi.

1 Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Paul E S Crampton

2 Research Department of Medical Education, University College London, London, UK

3 Monash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education (MCSHE), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

Charlotte E Rees

Associated data.

Table S2. MeSH terms and a selection of key terms utilised in the database searches.

Table S3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria with respect to topic, recentness and type of article.

Table S4. Refined inclusion and exclusion criteria to include contextual parameters.

Table S5. Studies by type: qualitative, quantitative and mixed‐methods.

Research 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.

The current synthesis adopts a realist approach to explore what interventions work for whom and under what circumstances.

We 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.

We 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

Short abstract

This realist review shows when and why interventions related to research strategy; people; income, infrastructure and facilities; and collaboration result in positive or negative research environments. Findings indicate that protected time, researcher identities and collaborative relationships are important for fostering successful research environments.

Introduction

Research environments matter. Environmental considerations such as robust cultures of research quality and support for researchers are thought to be the most influential predictors of research productivity. 1 , 2 Over 25 years ago, Bland and Ruffin 1 identified 12 characteristics of research‐favourable environments in the international academic medicine literature spanning the period from the mid‐1960s to 1990 (Box 1 ). Although these characteristics are aspirational in flavour, how they interplay to influence research productivity within increasingly complex institutional structures is not yet known. Indeed, although existing reviews have begun to help us better understand what makes for successful research environments, this research has typically ignored the contextual complexities and multiplicity of environmental characteristics 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 and has focused on narrow markers of productivity such as the quantity of research outputs (e.g. ref. 7 ) The current realist synthesis, therefore, aims to address this gap in the research literature by reviewing more recent literature ( 1992–2016 ) and exploring the features of successful research environments in terms of which interventions work, for whom, how and in what circumstances.

Characteristics of successful research environments 1

• Clear organisational research goals
• Research productivity as a priority and at least equal priority to other activities
• A robust research culture with shared research values
• A positive group climate
• Participative governance structures
• Non‐hierarchical and decentralised structures
• Good communication and professionally meaningful relationships between team members
• Decent resources such as people, funding, research facilities and time
• Larger group size, moderately established teams and diversity
• Rewards for research success
• Recruitment and selection of talented researchers
• Research‐oriented leaders with research expertise and skill

The contextual background for understanding successful research environments

Against a backdrop of the mass production of education, reduced government funding for research and ‘new managerialist’ cultures in higher education, 8 , 9 increased scrutiny of the quantity and quality of research, the research environments in which research is produced and the impacts of research has become inevitable. 10 Indeed, in higher education institutions (HEIs) globally, research productivity is being measured as part of individual researcher and research group key performance indicators. 7 In many countries, such as Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand and the UK, 11 HEI research is measured on a national scale through government‐led research assessments. Such research measurement has contributed to the allocation of funding to universities and differentiation of universities in the competitive marketplace, with some solidifying their institutional identities as ‘research‐intensive’ and others emphasising their relative ‘newcomer‐to‐research’ status (e.g. previously ‘teaching‐intensive’ universities). 9 , 12 , 13 Such institutional differentiation also parallels that of individual academics within universities, who are increasingly encouraged to take either ‘research‐active’ or ‘education‐focused’ career pathways. 8 , 9 It is these broader national and institutional constraints that inevitably impact on research environments at the level of units, centres, departments and schools within universities (the level of ‘research environment’ that we focus on in this paper). Table S1 provides definitions of key terms.

Key features of research environments identified in previous reviews

Evans defines a research environment as including: ‘shared values, assumptions, beliefs, rituals and other forms of behaviour whose central focus is the acceptance and recognition of research practice and output as valued, worthwhile and pre‐eminent activity.’ 14 Previous reviews have tended to focus on interventions aimed at individual researchers, such as research capacity building, 4 , 5 , 7 and with individual‐level outcomes, such as increased numbers of grants or publications. 4 , 5 , 7 These reviews have typically concluded that research capacity‐building interventions lead to positive research outcomes. 4 , 5 , 7 Furthermore, the reviews have identified both individual and institutional enablers to research. Individual enablers included researchers’ intrinsic motivation to conduct research. 6 , 7 Institutional enablers included peer support, encouragement and review, 7 mentoring and collaboration, 4 , 5 research leadership, 5 , 6 institutional structures, processes and systems supporting research, such as clear strategy, 5 , 6 protected time and financial support. 5 Although these reviews have begun to shed light on the features of successful research environments, they have significant limitations: (i) they either include studies of low to moderate quality 4 , 5 or fail to check the quality of studies included, 7 and (ii) they do not explore what works for whom and under what circumstances, but instead focus on what works and ignore the influence of the context in which interventions are implemented and ‘how’ outcomes come about. Indeed, Mazmanian et al. 4 concluded in their review: ‘…little is known about what works best and in what situations.’

Conceptual framework: a realist approach

Given the gaps in the research literature and the importance of promoting successful research environments for individuals’ careers, institutional prestige and the knowledge base of the community, we thought a realist synthesis would be most likely to elucidate how multiple complex interventions can influence success. Realism assumes the existence of an external reality (a real world), but one that is filtered (i.e. perceived, interpreted and responded to) through human senses, volitions, language and culture. 15 A realist approach enables the development and testing of theory for why interventions may or may not work, for whom and under what circumstances. 16 It does this through recognising that interventions do not directly cause outcomes; instead, participants’ reactions and responses to the opportunities provided by the intervention trigger outcomes. This approach can allow researchers to identify causal links in complex situations, such as those between interventions and the contexts in which they work, how they work (mechanisms) and their outcomes. 17 Although the context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) approach is not necessarily linear, it can help to provide explanations that privilege contextual variability. 18

Aligned with the goals of realist research, this synthesis aims to address the following research question: What are the features of successful research environments, for whom, how and in what circumstances?

We followed five stages of realist synthesis: (i) clarifying scope; (ii) searching for evidence; (iii) assessing quality; (iv) extracting data, and (v) synthesising data. 19 Our methods also follow the RAMESES ( r ealist a nd m eta‐narrative e vidence s ynthesis: e volving s tandards) reporting guidelines. 20

Clarifying the scope

We first clarified the scope of our realist synthesis by identifying relevant interventions based on the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 environment assessment criteria. The REF is a national exercise assessing the quality of research produced by UK HEIs, its impact beyond academia, and the environment that supports research. The assessment criteria indicated in the REF2014 environment template included the unit's research strategy , its people (including staffing strategy, staff development and research students), its income, infrastructure and facilities (IIF), as well as features of collaboration . 21 These guided our search terms (see stage 2 below). We chose to use these quality markers as they informed the UK national assessment exercise, upon which other national exercises are often based. In addition, these criteria were explicit, considered and implementable, and were developed through consensus. Like other realist syntheses, 18 , 22 , 23 ours considered a multiplicity of different interventions rather than just one and some of the papers we reviewed combined multiple interventions.

Based on previous reviews, 1 , 4 , 5 , 7 our initial programme theory speculated that interventions aligned to having an explicit research strategy, staff development opportunities, funding and establishing research networks would be effective for creating successful research environments (Fig. ​ (Fig.1 1 gives further details of our initial programme theory).

Initial programme theory

Searching for empirical evidence

We devised search terms as a team and refined these iteratively with the help of a health librarian experienced in searching. We split the research question into three key concepts: (i) research environment; (ii) discipline, and (iii) research indicator (i.e. positive or negative). We then used variations of these terms to search the most relevant databases including MEDLINE, ProQuest, Scopus, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and Web of Science. Table S2 illustrates the MeSH terms and provides a selection of key terms utilised in the database searches.

We were interested in comparing research cultures across the disciplines of medical education, education and medicine for two key reasons. Firstly, the discipline of medical education consists of a rich tapestry of epistemological approaches including biomedical sciences, social sciences and education, and medicine. 24 , 25 Secondly, there have been disciplinary arguments in the literature about whether medical education should be constructed as medicine or social science. 24 , 26

We agreed various inclusion and exclusion criteria with respect to topic, recentness and type of article (Table S3 ), as well as refined criteria to include contextual parameters (Table S4 ). We chose 1992 as the start date for our search period as 1992 saw the first published literature review about productive research environments in the academic medicine literature. 1

Study selection

The first top‐level search elicited 8527 journal articles across all databases. Once duplicate results had been removed, and ‘topic’ and ‘recentness’ study parameters reinforced, 420 articles remained. The searching and selection process is summarised in a PRISMA ( p referred r eporting i tems for s ystematic reviews and m eta‐ a nalyses) diagram (Fig. ​ (Fig.2). 2 ). Three research assistants and one of the authors (PESC) initially assessed relevance by reviewing abstracts using preliminary inclusion criteria. If any ambiguities were found by any of the reviewers, abstracts were checked by one of the other two researchers (RA and CER). Where divergent views existed, researchers discussed the reasons why and agreed on whether to include or exclude. A 10% sample of these 420 abstracts were double‐checked by an additional two researchers, including a number of articles previously excluded, for quality control purposes.

PRISMA flow diagram of the selection process

Assessment of quality

We assessed the journal articles for relevance and rigour. 20 We defined an article's relevance according to ‘whether it can contribute to theory building and/or testing’. 20 Following the relevance check and ‘type’ exclusions to original research papers, 100 articles remained, which were then assessed for rigour. Although we chose to narrow down to original research, we kept relevant articles such as systematic reviews and opinion pieces to inform the introduction and discussion sections of this paper.

We defined rigour as determining ‘whether the method used to generate the particular piece of data is credible and trustworthy’. 20 We used two pre‐validated tools to assess study quality: the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) to assess the quality of quantitative research, 27 , 28 and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist for qualitative and mixed‐method studies. 29 Both tools are used to consider the rigour of study design, sampling, type of data, data analysis and outcomes/findings, and have been employed in previous reviews. 23 , 30

Following the quality assessment, 47 articles remained and were then subjected to data extraction and synthesis. Five papers were excluded as they did not contribute to our theory building or lacked CMO configurations (CMOCs). We kept notes of the reasons for excluding studies and resolved doubts through discussion (Fig. ​ (Fig.2 2 ).

Data extraction

Two data‐rich articles containing multiple CMOCs were inductively and deductively (based on the initial programme theory) coded by all of us to ensure consistency. We then discussed any similarities and differences in our coding. As is inherent in the challenges of realist approaches, we found differences in our identifications of CMOCs, which often related to how one particular component (e.g. time) could be an outcome at one moment and a mechanism the next. This alerted us to overlapping constructs, which we then explored as we coded remaining papers. To collect data across all remaining papers, we extracted information relating to: study design, methods and sample size; study setting; intervention focus; contexts of the intervention; mechanisms generated in the results, and outcomes. The key CMOCs in all 42 articles were identified primarily from the results sections of the papers. The process of data extraction and analysis was iterative with repeated discussion among the researchers of the demi‐regularities (i.e. patterns of CMOCs) in relation to the initial programme theory and negotiations of any differences of opinion.

Data synthesis

Finally, we interrogated our data extraction to look for patterns across our data/papers. We used an interpretative approach to consider how our data compared with our initial programme theory in order to develop our modified programme theory.

Characteristics of the studies

The 42 papers represented the following disciplines: medical education ( n = 4, 10%); 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 education ( n = 18, 43%), 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 and medicine ( n = 20, 48%). 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 There were 26 (62%) qualitative studies, 11 (26%) quantitative studies and five (12%) mixed‐methods studies (Table S5 ). The studies were from countries across the globe, including Australia ( n = 10, 24%), the USA ( n = 7, 17%), the UK ( n = 6, 14%), Canada ( n = 4, 10%), South Africa ( n = 4, 10%), Denmark ( n = 2, 5%), Turkey ( n = 2, 5%) and others ( n = 7, 17%) (e.g. Belgium, China, Germany, New Zealand and the Philippines). The research designs varied but common approaches included qualitative interviews, surveys, documentary/bibliographic analysis, case studies and mixed‐methods studies. Study participants included academics, teachers, health care professionals, senior directors, PhD students, early‐career researchers (ECRs) and senior researchers. Table S6 lists the individual contexts, interventions, mechanisms and outcomes identified from individual papers.

Extending our initial programme theory

A key finding from our realist synthesis was that the same interventions fired either positive or negative mechanisms leading to positive or negative outcomes, respectively, depending on context. Surprisingly, the CMOCs were mostly consistent across the three disciplines (i.e. medical education, education and medicine) with local contexts seemingly interplaying more strongly with outcomes. Therefore, we present these disciplinary contexts here as merged, but we highlight any differences by disciplinary context where relevant.

Having a research strategy promoted a successful research environment when it enabled appropriate resources (including time) and valuing of research; however, it had negative consequences when it too narrowly focused on outputs, incentives and rewards. In terms of people , individual researchers needed to be internally motivated and to have a sense of belonging, and protected time and access to capacity‐building activities in order to produce research. Lack of knowledge, researcher identity, networks and time, plus limited leadership support, acted as mechanisms leading to negative research outcomes. The presence of IIF was overwhelmingly indicated as necessary for successful research environments and their absence was typically detrimental. Interestingly, a few papers reported that external funding could have negative consequences because short‐term contracts, reduced job security and the use of temporary junior staff can lead to weak research environments. 40 , 67 , 71 Finally, collaboration was crucial for successful research mediated through trusting respectful relationships, supportive leadership and belongingness. Poor communication and competitive cultures, however, worked to undermine collaboration, leading to isolation and low self‐esteem, plus decreased research engagement and productivity. Table ​ Table1 1 highlights illustrative CMOCs for each intervention extending our initial programme theory.

Positive and negative context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs) for each intervention

CMOCs indicated in bold highlight the three cross‐cutting themes of time, identity and relationships.

ECRs = early‐career researchers.

Key cross‐cutting mechanisms: time, identity and relationships

As Table ​ Table1 1 shows, the same intervention can lead to positive or negative outcomes depending on the particular contexts and mechanisms triggered. This highlights greater complexity than is evident at first glance. Cross‐cutting these four interventions were three mechanisms that were regularly identified as critical to the success (or not) of a research environment: time; researcher identities, and relationships. We now present key findings for each of these cross‐cutting mechanisms and discuss how their inter‐relations lead to our modified programme theory (Fig. ​ (Fig.3). 3 ). Note that although we have tried to separate these three mechanisms for ease of reading, they were often messily entangled. Table ​ Table2 2 presents quotes illustrating the way in which each mechanism mediates outcomes within particular circumstances.

Modified programme theory. ECR = early‐career researcher

Time, identity and relationships as cross‐cutting mechanisms mediating successful research environments

Time was identified as an important mechanism for mobilising research outcomes across our three disciplines. Time was conceptualised severally including as: protected time; workload pressures influencing time available; efficient use of time; flexible use of time; making time, and time in career. The two most commonly considered aspects were protected time and workload implications. Protected time was largely talked about in the negative across a variety of contexts and disciplines, with lack of protected time leading to lack of researcher engagement or inactivity and reduced research productivity. 32 , 35 , 37 , 41 , 44 , 47 , 49 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 67 Also across a variety of contexts and disciplines, and acting as a positive mechanism, available protected time was found to lead to increased research productivity and active research engagement. 31 , 36 , 40 , 48 , 49 , 63 , 65 With regard to workload, limitations on the time available for research imposed by excessive other workloads led to reduced research activity, lower research productivity, poor‐quality research and reduced opportunity to attend research training. 40 , 41 , 47 , 49 , 60 , 67 Juggling of multiple responsibilities, such as clinical, teaching, administrative and leadership roles, also inhibited research productivity by diminishing the time available for research. 35 , 40 , 49 The alignment of research with other non‐research work was described as driving efficiencies in the use of time leading to greater research productivity (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 1).

Identity was also an important mechanism for mobilising research outcomes across our three disciplines. Interpretations included personal identities (e.g. gender), professional identity (e.g. as a primary practitioner or a primary researcher), and social identity (e.g. sense of belongingness). Researcher identity was often referred to in relation to first‐career practitioners (and therefore second‐career researchers). Sharp et al. 48 defined these as participants recruited into higher education not directly from doctoral study but on the basis of their extensive ‘first‐order’ knowledge and pedagogical expertise. These were also practitioners conducting research in schools or hospitals. 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. 39 , 40 , 44 , 46 , 51 , 67 For first‐career practitioners (i.e. teachers, doctors), the research needed to be highly relevant and aligned to their primary identity work in order to motivate them. 53 , 59 , 62 , 65 This alignment was described as having a strong research–teaching nexus. 40 , 48 Linked to this concept was the need for first‐career practitioners to see the impact of research in relation to their primary work (e.g. patient‐ or student‐oriented) to facilitate motivation and to develop a researcher identity (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 2). 36 , 37 , 41 , 49 , 53 , 54 , 67 Where research was seen as irrelevant to primary identity work (e.g. English language teaching, general practice), there was research disengagement. 37 , 48 , 52 , 59 , 67

Relationships

For all researchers and across our three disciplines, relationships were important in the mediating of successful research environments. 31 , 34 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 44 , 57 , 60 , 66 , 67 Positive research relationships were characterised by mutual trust and respect, 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 54 , 66 , 72 whereas others described them as friendships that take time to develop. 51 Mutually supportive relationships seemed to be particularly relevant to ECRs in terms of developing confidence, self‐esteem and research capacity and making identity transitions. 35 , 43 , 48 , 58 , 67 Relationships in the form of networks were considered to improve the quality of research through multicentre research and improved collaboration. 33 , 60 Supportive leadership as a particular form of relationship was an important mechanism in promoting a successful research environment. Supportive leaders needed to monitor workloads, set the vision, raise awareness of the value of research, and provide positive role‐modelling, thereby leading to increased productivity, promoting researcher identities and creating thriving research environments (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 3). 31 , 34 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 53 , 55 , 62 Research leadership, however, could be influenced negatively by the context of compliance and counting in current university cultures damaging relationships, creating a loss of motivation, and raising feelings of devalue. Indeed, the failure of leaders to recognise researcher identities led to negative research productivity. 36 , 37 , 38 , 43 , 46 , 48 , 49

Intersections between time, identity and relationships within successful research environments

Time and identity.

Time and identity intersected in interesting ways. Firstly, time was a necessary enabler for the development of a researcher identity. 37 , 38 , 41 , 48 , 49 , 54 , 59 , 61 , 63 , 65 , 67 , 69 Secondly, those who identified as researchers (thus holding primary researcher identities) used their time efficiently to favour research activity outcomes despite a lack of protected time. 35 , 43 Conversely, for other professors who lacked personal determination and resilience for research, having protected time did not lead to better research activity. 43 This highlights the fact that time alone is insufficient to support a successful research environment, and that it is how time is utilised and prioritised by researchers that really matters (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 4).

Identity and relationships

Interventions aimed at developing researcher identity consistently focused on relationship building across the three disciplines. The interventions that supported identity transitions into research included formal research training, 44 , 48 , 52 , 68 mentoring, 41 , 48 , 57 , 65 , 72 writing groups, 72 and collaboration with peers and other researchers, 39 , 41 , 43 operating through multiple mechanisms including relationships. The mechanisms included self‐esteem/confidence, increased networks, external recognition as a researcher, belongingness, and self‐efficacy. 35 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 52 , 57 Furthermore, our data suggest that leadership can be an enabler to the development of a researcher identity. In particular, leadership enabled research autonomy, recognition and empowerment, and fostered supportive mentoring environments, leading to researcher identity development and research productivity (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 5). 34 , 38 , 46 , 48

Time and relationships

Relationships were developed and sustained over time (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 6). Across the three disciplines, the role of leaders (managers, directors, deans) was to acknowledge and raise awareness of research, and then to prioritise time for research against competing demands, leading to effective research networks, cohesion and collaboration. 31 , 34 , 38 , 43 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 55 , 70 Second‐career PhD students who did not invest time in establishing relationships with researchers in their new disciplines (as they already had strong supportive networks in their original disciplines) found that they had limited research networks following graduation. 48

Summary of key findings

Our initial programme theory was based on previous literature reviews 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 and on the REF2014 criteria. 10 , 21 However, we were able to develop a modified programme theory on the basis of our realist synthesis, which highlights novel findings in terms of what really matters for successful research environments. Firstly, we found that key interventions led to both positive (subjective and objective) and negative (subjective and objective) outcomes in various contexts. Interestingly, we did not identify any outcomes relating to research impact despite impact nowadays being considered a prominent marker of research success, alongside quantitative metrics such as number of publications, grant income and h‐indices. 21 Secondly, we found that disciplinary contexts appeared to be less influential than individual, local and institutional contexts. Finally, our modified programme theory demonstrates a complex interplay among three cross‐cutting mechanisms (time, researcher identity and relationships) as mechanisms underpinning both successful and unsuccessful research environments.

Key findings and comparisons with the existing literature

Our research supports the findings of earlier reviews 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 regarding the importance of having a clear research strategy, an organisation that values research, research‐oriented leadership, access to resources (such as people, funding, research facilities and time), and meaningful relationships. However, our research extends these findings considerably by flagging up the indication that a clear linear relationship, whereby the presence of these interventions will necessarily result in a successful research environment, does not exist. For example, instituting a research strategy can have negative effects if the indicators are seen as overly narrow in focus or output‐oriented. 38 , 40 , 46 , 47 , 64 Similarly, project money can lead to the employment of more part‐time staff on fixed‐term contracts, which results in instability, turnover and lack of research team expertise. 40 , 67 , 71

Our findings indicate that the interplays among time, identity and relationships are important considerations when implementing interventions promoting research environments. Although time was identified as an important mechanism affecting research outcomes within the majority of papers, researcher identity positively affected research outcomes even in time‐poor situations. Indeed, we found that identity acted as a mechanism for research productivity that could overcome limited time through individuals efficiently finding time to prioritise research through their motivation and resilience. 35 , 43 Time was therefore more than just time spent doing research, but also included investment in developing a researcher identity and relationships with other researchers over time. 37 , 38 , 41 , 48 , 49 , 54 , 59 , 61 , 63 , 67 , 69 Relationship‐building interventions were also found to be effective in supporting difficult identity transitions into research faced by ECRs and those with first‐career practitioner backgrounds. Supportive leadership, as a particular form of relationship, could be seen as an enabler to the provision of protected time and a reasonable workload, allowing time for research and for researcher identity formation. 34 , 38 , 46 , 48 Indeed, our realist synthesis findings highlight the central importance of researcher identity and thus offer a novel explanation for why research environments may not flourish even in the presence of a research strategy, resources (e.g. time) and valuing of research.

Researcher identity is complex and intersects with other identities such as those of practitioner, teacher, leader and so on. Brew et al. 39 , 73 , 74 explored researcher identification and productivity by asking researchers if they considered themselves to be ‘research‐active’ and part of a research team. Those who identified as researchers prioritised their work differently: those who were highly productive prioritised research, whereas those in the low‐productivity group prioritised teaching. 73 Interestingly, highly productive researchers tended to view research as a social phenomenon with publications, presentations and grants being ‘traded’ in academic networks. Brew et al. 39 explain that: ‘…the trading view relates to a self‐generating researcher identity. Researcher identity develops in the act of publication, networks, collaborations and peer review. These activities support a person's identification as a researcher. They also, in turn, influence performance measures and metrics.’ Although the relationships among identity, identification and productivity are clearly complex, we explored a broader range of metrics in our realist synthesis than just productivity.

Methodological strengths and limitations

This is the first study to explore this important topic using realist synthesis to better understand the influence of context and how particular interventions lead to outcomes. We followed RAMESES 20 guidelines and adopted a rigorous team‐based approach to each analytic stage, conducting regular quality checks. The search was not exhaustive as we could have ‘exploded’ the interventions and performed a comprehensive review of each in its own right (e.g. mentoring). However, for pragmatic reasons and to answer our broad research questions, we chose not to do this, as suggested by Wong et al. 20 Although all members of the team had been involved in realist syntheses previously, the process remained messy as we dealt with complex phenomena. The messiness often lies in untangling CMOCs and identifying recurrent patterns in the large amounts of literature reviewed.

Implications for education and research

Our findings suggest that interventions related to research strategy, people, IIF and collaboration are supported under the ‘right’ conditions. We need to focus on time, identity and relationships (including leadership) in order to better mobilise the interventions to promote successful research environments.

Individuals need to reflect on how and why they identify as researchers, including their conceptions of research and their working towards the development of a researcher identity such that research is internally motivated rather than just externally driven. Those who are second‐career researchers or those with significant teaching or practitioner roles could seek to align research with their practice while they establish wider research networks.

We recommend that research leaders support individuals to develop their researcher identity, be seen to value research, recognise that research takes time, and provide access to opportunities promoting research capacity building, strong relationships and collaboration. Leaders, for example, may introduce interventions that promote researcher identities and build research relationships (e.g. collaborations, networking, mentoring, research groups etc.), paying attention to the ways in which competitive or collaborative cultures are fostered. Browne et al. 75 recently recommended discussions around four categories for promoting identity transition: reflection on self (values, experiences and expectations); consideration of the situation (circumstances, concerns); support (what is available and what is needed), and strategies (personal strategies to cope with change and thrive). With the professionalisation of medical education, 76 research units are increasingly likely to contain a mixture of first‐ and second‐career researchers, and our review suggests that discussions about conceptions of research and researcher identity would be valuable.

Finally, organisations need to value research and provide access to resources and research capacity‐building activities. Within the managerialist cultures of HEIs, compliance and counting have already become dominant discourses in terms of promotion and success. Policymakers should therefore consider ways in which HEIs recognise, incentivise and reward research in all its forms (including subjective and objective measures of quantity, quality and impact) to determine the full effects of their policies on research environments.

Future research would benefit from further exploration of the interplay among time, identities and relationships (including leadership) in different contexts using realist evaluation. 77 Specifically, as part of realist approaches, longitudinal audio‐diaries 78 could be employed to explore researcher identity transitions over time, particularly for first‐career practitioners transitioning into second‐career researchers.

Contributors

RA and CER were responsible for the conception of the synthesis. All authors contributed to the protocol development. RA and PESC carried out the database searches. All authors sifted for relevance and rigour, analysed the papers and contributed to the writing of the article. All authors approved the final manuscript for publication.

Conflicts of interest

Ethical approval.

not required.

Supporting information

Table S1. Definitions of key terms.

Table S6. Contexts, interventions, mechanisms and outcomes identified in individual studies.

Acknowledgements

we thank Andy Jackson, Learning and Teaching Librarian, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK, for his advice and help in developing our literature searches. We also thank Laura McDonald, Paul McLean and Eilidh Dear, who were medical students at the University of Dundee, for their help with database searches and with sifting papers for relevance and rigour. We would also like to thank Chau Khuong, Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, for her work in designing Figs ​ Figs1 1 and ​ and3 3 .

• Feature Article

Research Culture: Setting the right tone

• Elizabeth Adams
• University of Glasgow, United Kingdom ;
• Open access
• Copyright information
• Comment Open annotations (there are currently 0 annotations on this page).
• 15,446 views
• 844 downloads
• 9 citations

Share this article

Cite this article.

• Tanita Casci
• Copy to clipboard
• Download BibTeX
• Download .RIS

Article and author information

Improving the research culture of an institution may lead to a fairer, more rewarding and successful environment, but how do you start making changes?

The University of Glasgow was founded more than 550 years ago and currently welcomes over 5000 researchers working in a wide range of subjects across the sciences and the humanities. Feedback suggests that our research culture is already good, but we think that it could be even better. As the Head of Research Policy (TC) and the Researcher Development Manager (EA), we have spent the past few years working to update research culture at Glasgow. Based on our experiences, our advice to anyone trying to change the culture of their institution is to be practical, consistent, and to aim for progress, not perfection. Start even if you cannot see the end. The project is big, slow, fragmented: and yes, it is a fantasy to imagine that a university has, or should have, a single culture.

The recent research culture survey by the Wellcome Trust has highlighted what many of us would not dispute: that the pursuit of a narrow definition of research excellence, and of excellence at any cost, has limited the research endeavour and had an adverse impact on the wellbeing of researchers as well as the quality and reliability of the research they undertake. It is not too late to fix this issue, but solutions will emerge only once research organisations, funders, publishers and government coordinate their efforts to identify practical actions that can be implemented consistently across the research community.

Meanwhile, the complexity of the problem should in no way stop us from implementing changes within our own institutions. At Glasgow, we focus on fostering a positive research culture . To do so, we develop policies, guidance, communications, training and related initiatives that support the success of researchers at all stages of their career.

With the support of our senior management, we have introduced several initiatives that we hope will make our institution an inspiring place in which to develop a career — whether it is academic or administrative, operational or technical, or indeed something different altogether. Some of these initiatives are summarised in this post ; in this article we will also share the lessons we learned along the way that might be useful to others.

Start from what you know

Research culture is a hazy concept, which includes the way we evaluate, support and reward quality in research, how we recognise varied contributions to a research activity, and the way we support different career paths.

Of all the things you could do to improve research culture, start from the priorities that you think matter most to your organisation; those that reflect its values, fit with what your community really cares about, or align to the activities that are already in progress. If you can, line up your agenda to an external driver. In our situation, two prominent drivers are the UK Research Excellence Framework (an exercise that assesses the quality of research, including the research environment, at all UK universities), and the Athena Swan awards (which evaluate gender equality at institutional and local levels). Our research culture initiatives also work alongside everyday drivers from research funders and other bodies, such as concordats on research integrity , career development and open research data .

Even better, align your initiative to more than one agenda. For example, we are supporting transparency, fairness, accountability (and therefore quality, career development, and collaboration) by requesting that research articles deposited in our institutional repository follow the CRediT taxonomy , whereby the roles and responsibilities of each authors are laid down explicitly.

Once you know what you mean by culture, write it down and let people know. This will aid communication, keep everyone focussed, and avoid the misunderstanding that culture is a solution to all our problems (“The car parking is a nightmare. I thought we had a culture agenda!”).

At Glasgow we define a positive research culture as one in which colleagues (i) are valued for their contributions to a research activity, (ii) support each other to succeed, and (iii) are supported to produce research that meets the highest standards of academic rigour. We have then aligned our activities to meet these aims, for example by redesigning our promotion criteria to include collegiality, and creating a new career track for research scientists (see Box 1 ).

Changing promotion criteria and career trajectories to foster a different research culture

At the University of Glasgow, academic promotion criteria are based on a 'preponderance approach': candidates need only meet the necessary criteria in four of the seven dimensions used to assess staff for promotion (academic outputs; grant capture; supervision; esteem; learning and teaching practice; impact; leadership, management and engagement). For the 2019–2020 promotions round, the University has also introduced a requirement to evidence collegiality as well as excellence in each of the four qualifying dimensions. The criteria recognise not only the achievement of the individual but also how that individual has supported the careers of others.

From 2019–2020 onwards, promotion criteria for the academic track also explicitly state that one of the four qualifying criteria should be either academic outputs or impact. By ‘impact’ we mean the evidenced benefits to society that have resulted from the research – these could be economic, societal, cultural, or related to health and policy. The new criteria therefore formally acknowledge that societal impact holds as much value to the institution as outputs, and that generating and evidencing impact takes time. It also ensures that staff does not feel under pressure to ‘do everything’. We will be monitoring the effect of these changes in mid 2020.

In addition, Glasgow has recently introduced a career pathway for research scientists: this track recognises and rewards the contributions made by researchers who have specialist knowledge and skills, such as bioinformaticians. The contributions and intellectual leadership provided by these roles are often not reflected in the traditional promotion criteria, which depend on lead or senior authorships. Research scientists can instead progress in their careers by demonstrating specialist work stream, as well as team contributions.

Practice, not policy

Success will not come from issuing policies, but by making practical changes that signal “the way we do things around here”. Even if university policies are read, they will be forgotten unless the principles are embedded in standard practice. And if we are not serious about our practices, then we are not credible about our intentions.

Over 1500 organisations have signed DORA and have committed not to use unreliable proxies such as journal impact factors in research evaluation. Yet, even purging references to journal impact factors from all paperwork is no guarantee that these or other metrics will not be used. If we are serious about fair evaluation mechanisms, then we need to provide evaluation panels with meaningful information. At Glasgow, we ask applicants to describe in 100 words the importance of their output, and their contribution to it. Many organisations have switched to the use of narrative formats, for instance the Royal Society , or the Dutch research council ( NWO ). To show that we value all dimensions of research, we also ask for a commitment to open research and give parity of credit to academic outputs (such as papers) and the societal impact they create (see Box 1 ).

To ensure that changes are felt on the ground, we are embedding these priorities in annual appraisals, promotion and recruitment, so that the same expectations are encountered in every relevant setting. We have also included the importance of responsible metrics in recruitment training, and will be working with our colleagues in human resources to ensure that local conversations with hiring managers are consistent with our metrics policy (see Box 2 ).

Responsible metrics

The policy on the responsible use of metrics means ensuring that the mechanisms we use to evaluate research quality are appropriate and fairly applied. For example, we need to make sure that quantitative indicators are suitably benchmarked and normalised by subject, and that they are used along qualitative ones. This is to avoid the over-reliance on single-point metrics (such as research funding) and over-use of unreliable proxies for quality (such as journal impact factors).

The policy describes our approach to evaluating the quality of our outputs, our supervision and our grant capture. The proof, however, is in the way the policy is implemented in practice. For example, applicants to our strategic recruitment schemes are requested to select their four best outputs, describe the significance of each output to the field (without relying on impact factors), and narrate their contribution to the work. Applicants are also asked to describe their commitment to open research. This approach allows the recruitment panel to obtain a more rounded impression of the candidate and, we hope, reduces the use of unhelpful proxies such as length of publication list or journal impact factors.

Start, even if you cannot see the finish line

Once you have decided on the general direction, start by doing something without worrying about scoping the project from start to finish.

At Glasgow we started by doing a 360-degree review of our provision for research integrity: this was not just about the training but also about raising the visibility of this agenda in the community. We did not call it ‘culture’ then, but we realised that progress would come from communicating the dimensions of good practice (e.g. open research) rather than by sanctioning breaches of conduct. That exercise gave us experience of getting support from senior management, managing a cross-institutional working group, and getting buy-in from the academic body through the establishment of a network of 29 integrity advisers . These individuals champion this agenda to researchers, contribute to training and policy and also participate in research misconduct panels.

From integrity, we moved to open research, and from there, to careers. It started with compliance, and progressed towards culture. Do not wait for the rules to come to you. Make your own. Have confidence that once projects are initiated, they will suggest future courses of action.

Shout about it

If you want to be noticed, it helps to over-communicate. If your project serves more than one agenda, then your colleagues in, say, human resources, the library, the research office, and the equality, diversity, and inclusion team will already be helping you to amplify the message. We have set up a Culture and Careers group that brings together a range of relevant professional groups and colleagues. Focusing on our culture activities and the training that we can provide to staff and students helps us to share knowledge and to highlight where different agendas can reinforce each other.

Make the framework easy to understand: at Glasgow we talk about supporting what we value (e.g. CRediT), recognising what we value (e.g. our promotion criteria), and celebrating those values, for instance with our recently launched research culture awards . These highlight outstanding activities that promote collegial behaviours and contribute to a positive research culture. In 2019, over 30 applications were received from across the institution, reflecting a variety of career stages, coming from academic, technical and professional services roles, and ranging from groups of researchers to individual staff. The awards have changed the conversation as to what culture actually is.

But equally do not fret if colleagues do not know how your various activities fit together under a ‘culture’ agenda. It is far more important that researchers embrace the activities themselves (see “Practice, not policy” above).

Communication takes legwork, so use any channel you have. Present at committees, consult with different disciplines and career stages. Speak to the willing. Welcome the challenge. Bring together different voices in a discussion forum. For example, we recently organised a research culture event involving action-oriented conversations with academics, administrators, funders, societies, and publishers; this helped to build our evidence base, share perspectives and move forward institutional thinking in relation to key areas of culture (see the illustration for a summary of the discussion).

Map of the ideas discussed at the Re-imagining research culture workshop organised at the University of Glasgow in September 2019.

Jacquie Forbes at drawntolearn.co.uk (CC BY 4.0)

A research culture survey allowed us to assess how we were doing. It gathered examples of good practice (for example, that the community appreciated reading groups and the opportunity for internal peer review) and it highlighted the aspects of research our staff were comfortable with (open access, for instance). It also pointed us towards what people wanted to know more about, such as how to increase the visibility of their research. Together, the event and survey have informed our next actions (you can access the question set here ) and our action plan for the next five years.

No such thing as a single culture

If you work in a research organisation, you are probably relaxed about the fact that different parts of the institution have their own priorities, as befits the disciplinary community.

Institution-wide projects should be designed to address the broad ambitions of the university: for example, all areas of the university can participate in the research culture awards or meet the requirement for collegiality in our promotion criteria.

Each discipline can then be invited to implement the culture programme that suits them. Getting this right requires a bit of flexibility, some confidence that things will not unravel, but also clear leadership. Some institutional glue can be provided by sharing case studies between areas, which is helped by collecting feedback on how policies and guidance are being implemented at the university level. For example, our new guidance on embedding equality, diversity and inclusion in conferences and events contains a weblink to a feedback survey. We hope that this will help us to pinpoint where colleagues are struggling to implement best practice, perhaps due to other organisational challenges such as funding, lack of clear guidance or procurement.

What’s next?

We have published an action plan for our 2020 – 2025 university strategy , which covers career development, research evaluation, collegiality, open research and research integrity. The starting point will be to focus on supporting career development, on helping researchers to enhance their visibility, and on developing an informed and committed leadership across the university.

We have also published an institutional statement to highlight the road travelled and our future plans. All the while, we are drawing inspiration from others: the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society, and the progressive policies introduced by publishers such as PLoS, eLife, Wiley, and F1000. We are excited by the launch of initiatives that will inform better decision-making in the culture space, and online groups for sharing ideas. We want to be a part of organisations, such as the UK Reproducibility Network , that identify priorities and work together in implementing them.

We are also casting our eyes towards broader aspects of culture: how do we define and encourage research creativity, how do we make more time, and how might we extend the scope of our actions beyond research staff to all those that contribute to research?

Culture does not happen at the expense of excellence; an updated culture is what will allow even more of us to excel.

Author details

Tanita Casci (@tanitacasci) is the Head of Research Policy at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom

For correspondence

Competing interests.

Elizabeth Adams (@researchdreams) is the Researcher Development Manager at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the extended network of academics, technicians, students and professional services staff who over a long time have variously driven, supported, and constructively challenged what we are doing.

Publication history

• Received: January 29, 2020
• Accepted: January 29, 2020
• Version of Record published: February 10, 2020 (version 1)

© 2020, Casci and Adams

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

Downloads (link to download the article as pdf).

• Article PDF

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools), categories and tags.

• research culture
• academic careers
• academic promotion
• responsible metrics
• University of Glasgow
• Part of Collection

Research Culture: A Selection of Articles

Further reading.

Research culture needs to be improved for the benefit of science and scientists.

Be the first to read new articles from eLife

Research culture

The Royal Society’s research culture programme of work aims to embed a culture of research that will support the science community looking forward to 2035.

Research culture encompasses the behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes and norms of our research communities. It influences researchers’ career paths and determines the way that research is conducted and communicated. 

The UK has a long history of shaping global research culture, from the times of the Enlightenment scientists, the foundation of the Royal Society  and the frameworks of publishing and peer review, through to its recent leadership in championing science as an open enterprise .

Building on this history and the strengths of research culture today, the Royal Society has started Changing expectations , a programme of work to explore how the UK can promote the cultural conditions that will best enable excellent research and researchers here and elsewhere to flourish in the future . The focus of this programme is on the assessment of research and researchers, researcher career development, and open science. 

Watch the videos recorded throughout the Research Culture: Changing expectations conference.

Read more about research culture in our latest blog posts.

Changing expectations

Research culture: Changing expectations conference

Tools to support and steward research culture

Research system, culture and funding

The UK has a world-class research system, producing high quality science that contributes to the country’s economic growth while also tackling society’s biggest challenges. The funding of research, along with the culture it supports, needs to continually evolve if science is to be the best it can be.

Email updates

We promote excellence in science so that, together, we can benefit humanity and tackle the biggest challenges of our time.

Subscribe to our newsletters to be updated with the latest news on innovation, events, articles and reports.

What subscription are you interested in receiving? (Choose at least one subject)

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Why should researchers care about culture?

Affiliation.

• 1 Toronto Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS), University of Toronto, Department of Psychiatry, Suite 625, 250 College St., Toronto, ON M5T 1R8. [email protected]
• PMID: 12728739
• DOI: 10.1177/070674370304800303

Analysis of the existing literature together with case experience reveals at least 4 implications of culture for the conduct of mental health research. Culture helps define the field of study, assists in identifying research gaps, shapes research paradigms, and supports the evolution of a cosmopolitan view of mental health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Shared mental health care in Canada. Making a joint effort to define our roles. Craven MA, Handfield-Jones R. Craven MA, et al. Can Fam Physician. 1997 Oct;43:1785-7. Can Fam Physician. 1997. PMID: 9356759 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• Elements of Care--Indirect Services in Psychiatry. Gaind KS, Aydin C, Gonzalez-Pino F, Hoyt L, Jay R, Khullar A, Kronfli RN, Natarajan D, Wiseman SR. Gaind KS, et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2015 Nov;60(11):1-4. Can J Psychiatry. 2015. PMID: 26720502 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• [Health services in Canada and Norway. Looked at from the psychiatric point of view]. Ekern P, Ostbye T. Ekern P, et al. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1989 May 20;109(14):1543-6. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1989. PMID: 2749645 Norwegian. No abstract available.
• The relevance of qualitative research for clinical programs in psychiatry. Goering P, Boydell KM, Pignatiello A. Goering P, et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2008 Mar;53(3):145-51. doi: 10.1177/070674370805300304. Can J Psychiatry. 2008. PMID: 18441660 Review.
• The future of cultural psychiatry: an international perspective. Kirmayer LJ, Minas H. Kirmayer LJ, et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2000 Jun;45(5):438-46. doi: 10.1177/070674370004500503. Can J Psychiatry. 2000. PMID: 10900523 Review.
• Treatment Issues for Aboriginal Mothers with Substance Use Problems and Their Children. Niccols A, Dell CA, Clarke S. Niccols A, et al. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2010 Apr 1;8(2):320-335. doi: 10.1007/s11469-009-9255-8. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2010. PMID: 24976814 Free PMC article.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

3.1 What Is Culture?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Differentiate between culture and society
• Explain material versus nonmaterial culture
• Discuss the concept of cultural universals as it relates to society
• Compare and contrast ethnocentrism and xenocentrism

Humans are social creatures. According to Smithsonian Institution research, humans have been forming groups for almost 3 million years in order to survive. Living together, people formed common habits and behaviors, from specific methods of childrearing to preferred techniques for obtaining food.

Almost every human behavior, from shopping to marriage, is learned. In the U.S., marriage is generally seen as an individual choice made by two adults, based on mutual feelings of love. In other nations and in other times, marriages have been arranged through an intricate process of interviews and negotiations between entire families. In Papua New Guinea, almost 30 percent of women marry before the age of 18, and 8 percent of men have more than one wife (National Statistical Office, 2019). To people who are not from such a culture, arranged marriages may seem to have risks of incompatibility or the absence of romantic love. But many people from cultures where marriages are arranged, which includes a number of highly populated and modern countries, often prefer the approach because it reduces stress and increases stability (Jankowiak 2021).

Being familiar with unwritten rules helps people feel secure and at ease. Knowing to look left instead of right for oncoming traffic while crossing the street can help avoid serious injury and even death. Knowing unwritten rules is also fundamental in understanding humor in different cultures. Humor is common to all societies, but what makes something funny is not. Americans may laugh at a scene in which an actor falls; in other cultures, falling is never funny. Most people want to live their daily lives confident that their behaviors will not be challenged or disrupted. But even an action as seemingly simple as commuting to work evidences a great deal of cultural propriety, that is, there are a lot of expected behaviors. And many interpretations of them.

Take the case of going to work on public transportation. Whether people are commuting in Egypt, Ireland, India, Japan, and the U.S., many behaviors will be the same and may reveal patterns. Others will be different. In many societies that enjoy public transportation, a passenger will find a marked bus stop or station, wait for the bus or train, pay an agent before or after boarding, and quietly take a seat if one is available. But when boarding a bus in Cairo, Egypt, passengers might board while the bus is moving, because buses often do not come to a full stop to take on patrons. In Dublin, Ireland, bus riders would be expected to extend an arm to indicate that they want the bus to stop for them. And when boarding a commuter train in Mumbai, India, passengers must squeeze into overstuffed cars amid a lot of pushing and shoving on the crowded platforms. That kind of behavior might be considered rude in other societies, but in Mumbai it reflects the daily challenges of getting around on a train system that is taxed to capacity.

Culture can be material or nonmaterial. Metro passes and bus tokens are part of material culture, as are the buses, subway cars, and the physical structures of the bus stop. Think of material culture as items you can touch-they are tangible . Nonmaterial culture , in contrast, consists of the ideas, attitudes, and beliefs of a society. These are things you cannot touch. They are intangible . You may believe that a line should be formed to enter the subway car or that other passengers should not stand so close to you. Those beliefs are intangible because they do not have physical properties and can be touched.

Material and nonmaterial aspects of culture are linked, and physical objects often symbolize cultural ideas. A metro pass is a material object, but it represents a form of nonmaterial culture, namely, capitalism, and the acceptance of paying for transportation. Clothing, hairstyles, and jewelry are part of material culture, but the appropriateness of wearing certain clothing for specific events reflects nonmaterial culture. A school building belongs to material culture symbolizing education, but the teaching methods and educational standards are part of education’s nonmaterial culture.

As people travel from different regions to entirely different parts of the world, certain material and nonmaterial aspects of culture become dramatically unfamiliar. What happens when we encounter different cultures? As we interact with cultures other than our own, we become more aware of the differences and commonalities between others and our own. If we keep our sociological imagination awake, we can begin to understand and accept the differences. Body language and hand gestures vary around the world, but some body language seems to be shared across cultures: When someone arrives home later than permitted, a parent or guardian meeting them at the door with crossed arms and a frown on their face means the same in Russia as it does in the U.S. as it does in Ghana.

Cultural Universals

Although cultures vary, they also share common elements. Cultural universals are patterns or traits that are globally common to all societies. One example of a cultural universal is the family unit: every human society recognizes a family structure that regulates sexual reproduction and the care of children. Even so, how that family unit is defined and how it functions vary. In many Asian cultures, for example, family members from all generations commonly live together in one household. In these cultures, young adults continue to live in the extended household family structure until they marry and join their spouse’s household, or they may remain and raise their nuclear family within the extended family’s homestead. In the U.S., by contrast, individuals are expected to leave home and live independently for a period before forming a family unit that consists of parents and their offspring. Other cultural universals include customs like funeral rites, weddings, and celebrations of births. However, each culture may view and conduct the ceremonies quite differently.

Anthropologist George Murdock first investigated the existence of cultural universals while studying systems of kinship around the world. Murdock found that cultural universals often revolve around basic human survival, such as finding food, clothing, and shelter, or around shared human experiences, such as birth and death or illness and healing. Through his research, Murdock identified other universals including language, the concept of personal names, and, interestingly, jokes. Humor seems to be a universal way to release tensions and create a sense of unity among people (Murdock, 1949). Sociologists consider humor necessary to human interaction because it helps individuals navigate otherwise tense situations.

Sociological Research

Is music a cultural universal.

Imagine that you are sitting in a theater, watching a film. The movie opens with the protagonist sitting on a park bench with a grim expression on their face. The music starts to come in. The first slow and mournful notes play in a minor key. As the melody continues, the heroine turns her head and sees a man walking toward her. The music gets louder, and the sounds don’t seem to go together – as if the orchestra is intentionally playing the wrong notes. You tense up as you watch, almost hoping to stop. The character is clearly in danger.

Now imagine that you are watching the same movie – the exact same footage – but with a different soundtrack. As the scene opens, the music is soft and soothing, with a hint of sadness. You see the protagonist sitting on the park bench with a grim expression. Suddenly, the music swells. The woman looks up and sees a man walking toward her. The notes are high and bright, and the pace is bouncy. You feel your heart rise in your chest. This is a happy moment.

Music has the ability to evoke emotional responses. In television shows, movies, commercials, and even the background music in a store, music has a message and seems to easily draw a response from those who hear it – joy, sadness, fear, victory. Are these types of musical cues cultural universals?

In 2009, a team of psychologists, led by Thomas Fritz of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany, studied people’s reactions to music that they’d never heard (Fritz et al., 2009). The research team traveled to Cameroon, Africa, and asked Mafa tribal members to listen to Western music. The tribe, isolated from Western culture, had never been exposed to Western culture and had no context or experience within which to interpret its music. Even so, as the tribal members listened to a Western piano piece, they were able to recognize three basic emotions: happiness, sadness, and fear. Music, the study suggested, is a sort of universal language.

Researchers also found that music can foster a sense of wholeness within a group. In fact, scientists who study the evolution of language have concluded that originally language (an established component of group identity) and music were one (Darwin, 1871). Additionally, since music is largely nonverbal, the sounds of music can cross societal boundaries more easily than words. Music allows people to make connections, where language might be a more difficult barricade. As Fritz and his team found, music and the emotions it conveys are cultural universals.

Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism

Although human societies have much in common, cultural differences are far more prevalent than cultural universals. For example, while all cultures have language, analysis of conversational etiquette reveals tremendous differences. In some Middle Eastern cultures, it is common to stand close to others in conversation. Americans keep more distance and maintain a large “personal space.” Additionally, behaviors as simple as eating and drinking vary greatly from culture to culture. Some cultures use tools to put the food in the mouth while others use their fingers. If your professor comes into an early morning class holding a mug of liquid, what do you assume they are drinking? In the U.S., it’s most likely filled with coffee, not Earl Grey tea, a favorite in England, or Yak Butter tea, a staple in Tibet.

Some travelers pride themselves on their willingness to try unfamiliar foods, like the late celebrated food writer Anthony Bourdain (1956-2017). Often, however, people express disgust at another culture's cuisine. They might think that it’s gross to eat raw meat from a donkey or parts of a rodent, while they don’t question their own habit of eating cows or pigs.

Such attitudes are examples of ethnocentrism , which means to evaluate and judge another culture based on one’s own cultural norms. Ethnocentrism is believing your group is the correct measuring standard and if other cultures do not measure up to it, they are wrong. As sociologist William Graham Sumner (1906) described the term, it is a belief or attitude that one’s own culture is better than all others. Almost everyone is a little bit ethnocentric.

A high level of appreciation for one’s own culture can be healthy. A shared sense of community pride, for example, connects people in a society. But ethnocentrism can lead to disdain or dislike of other cultures and could cause misunderstanding, stereotyping, and conflict. Individuals, government, non-government, private, and religious institutions with the best intentions sometimes travel to a society to “help” its people, because they see them as uneducated, backward, or even inferior. Cultural imperialism is the deliberate imposition of one’s own cultural values on another culture.

Colonial expansion by Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, and England grew quickly in the fifteenth century was accompanied by severe cultural imperialism. European colonizers often viewed the people in these new lands as uncultured savages who needed to adopt Catholic governance, Christianity, European dress, and other cultural practices.

A modern example of cultural imperialism may include the work of international aid agencies who introduce agricultural methods and plant species from developed countries into areas that are better served by indigenous varieties and agricultural approaches to the particular region. Another example would be the deforestation of the Amazon Basin as indigenous cultures lose land to timber corporations.

When people find themselves in a new culture, they may experience disorientation and frustration. In sociology, we call this culture shock . In addition to the traveler’s biological clock being ‘off’, a traveler from Chicago might find the nightly silence of rural Montana unsettling, not peaceful. Now, imagine that the ‘difference’ is cultural. An exchange student from China to the U.S. might be annoyed by the constant interruptions in class as other students ask questions—a practice that is considered rude in China. Perhaps the Chicago traveler was initially captivated with Montana’s quiet beauty and the Chinese student was originally excited to see a U.S.- style classroom firsthand. But as they experience unanticipated differences from their own culture, they may experience ethnocentrism as their excitement gives way to discomfort and doubts about how to behave appropriately in the new situation. According to many authors, international students studying in the U.S. report that there are personality traits and behaviors expected of them. Black African students report having to learn to ‘be Black in the U.S.’ and Chinese students report that they are naturally expected to be good at math. In African countries, people are identified by country or kin, not color. Eventually, as people learn more about a culture, they adapt to the new culture for a variety of reasons.

Culture shock may appear because people aren’t always expecting cultural differences. Anthropologist Ken Barger (1971) discovered this when he conducted a participatory observation in an Inuit community in the Canadian Arctic. Originally from Indiana, Barger hesitated when invited to join a local snowshoe race. He knew he would never hold his own against these experts. Sure enough, he finished last, to his mortification. But the tribal members congratulated him, saying, “You really tried!” In Barger’s own culture, he had learned to value victory. To the Inuit people, winning was enjoyable, but their culture valued survival skills essential to their environment: how hard someone tried could mean the difference between life and death. Over the course of his stay, Barger participated in caribou hunts, learned how to take shelter in winter storms, and sometimes went days with little or no food to share among tribal members. Trying hard and working together, two nonmaterial values, were indeed much more important than winning.

During his time with the Inuit tribe, Barger learned to engage in cultural relativism . Cultural relativism is the practice of assessing a culture by its own standards rather than viewing it through the lens of one’s own culture. Practicing cultural relativism requires an open mind and a willingness to consider, and even adapt to, new values, norms, and practices.

However, indiscriminately embracing everything about a new culture is not always possible. Even the most culturally relativist people from egalitarian societies—ones in which women have political rights and control over their own bodies—question whether the widespread practice of female genital mutilation in countries such as Ethiopia and Sudan should be accepted as a part of cultural tradition. Sociologists attempting to engage in cultural relativism, then, may struggle to reconcile aspects of their own culture with aspects of a culture that they are studying. Sociologists may take issue with the practices of female genital mutilation in many countries to ensure virginity at marriage just as some male sociologists might take issue with scarring of the flesh to show membership. Sociologists work diligently to keep personal biases out of research analysis.

Sometimes when people attempt to address feelings of ethnocentrism and develop cultural relativism, they swing too far to the other end of the spectrum. Xenocentrism is the opposite of ethnocentrism, and refers to the belief that another culture is superior to one’s own. (The Greek root word xeno-, pronounced “ZEE-no,” means “stranger” or “foreign guest.”) An exchange student who goes home after a semester abroad or a sociologist who returns from the field may find it difficult to associate with the values of their own culture after having experienced what they deem a more upright or nobler way of living. An opposite reaction is xenophobia, an irrational fear or hatred of different cultures.

Perhaps the greatest challenge for sociologists studying different cultures is the matter of keeping a perspective. It is impossible for anyone to overcome all cultural biases. The best we can do is strive to be aware of them. Pride in one’s own culture doesn’t have to lead to imposing its values or ideas on others. And an appreciation for another culture shouldn’t preclude individuals from studying it with a critical eye. This practice is perhaps the most difficult for all social scientists.

Sociology in the Real World

Overcoming culture shock.

During her summer vacation, Caitlin flew from Chicago, Illinois to Madrid, Spain to visit Maria, the exchange student she had befriended the previous semester. In the airport, she heard rapid, musical Spanish being spoken all around her.

Exciting as it was, she felt isolated and disconnected. Maria’s mother kissed Caitlin on both cheeks when she greeted her. Her imposing father kept his distance. Caitlin was half asleep by the time supper was served—at 10 p.m. Maria’s family sat at the table for hours, speaking loudly, gesturing, and arguing about politics, a taboo dinner subject in Caitlin’s house. They served wine and toasted their honored guest. Caitlin had trouble interpreting her hosts’ facial expressions, and did not realize she should make the next toast. That night, Caitlin crawled into a strange bed, wishing she had not come. She missed her home and felt overwhelmed by the new customs, language, and surroundings. She’d studied Spanish in school for years—why hadn’t it prepared her for this?

What Caitlin did not realize was that people depend not only on spoken words but also on body language, like gestures and facial expressions, to communicate. Cultural norms and practices accompany even the smallest nonverbal signals (DuBois, 1951). They help people know when to shake hands, where to sit, how to converse, and even when to laugh. We relate to others through a shared set of cultural norms, and ordinarily, we take them for granted.

For this reason, culture shock is often associated with traveling abroad, although it can happen in one’s own country, state, or even hometown. Anthropologist Kalervo Oberg (1960) is credited with first coining the term “culture shock.” In his studies, Oberg found that most people are excited at first to encounter a new culture. But bit by bit, they become stressed by interacting with people from a different culture who speak another language and use different regional expressions. There is new food to digest, new daily schedules to follow, and new rules of etiquette to learn. Living with this constant stress can make people feel incompetent and insecure. People react to frustration in a new culture, Oberg found, by initially rejecting it and glorifying one’s own culture. An American visiting Italy might long for a “real” pizza or complain about the unsafe driving habits of Italians.

It helps to remember that culture is learned. Everyone is ethnocentric to an extent, and identifying with one’s own country is natural. Caitlin’s shock was minor compared to that of her friends Dayar and Mahlika, a Turkish couple living in married student housing on campus. And it was nothing like that of her classmate Sanai. Sanai had been forced to flee war-torn Bosnia with her family when she was fifteen. After two weeks in Spain, Caitlin had developed more compassion and understanding for what those people had gone through. She understood that adjusting to a new culture takes time. It can take weeks or months to recover from culture shock, and it can take years to fully adjust to living in a new culture.

By the end of Caitlin’s trip, she had made new lifelong friends. Caitlin stepped out of her comfort zone. She had learned a lot about Spain, but discovered a lot about herself and her own culture.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/3-1-what-is-culture

© Jul 22, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

We all have a role in building a positive research culture

Head of Knowledge Management and Scholarly Communication, Medical Research Council

8 December 2022

Find out how we’re introducing a new type of investment which will embed positive research and innovation culture within research excellence.

In September 2022, we published our strategic delivery plan , in which we commit to strengthen our efforts to advance an open and collaborative research and innovation culture. The plan also recognises the importance of working with a wide range of partners and the biomedical health research community to build on and inform research culture frameworks and strategies.

Defining a positive research culture

Demonstrating that we are acting on our commitment is important for us at the Medical Research Council (MRC). For example, we’ve just launched a new funding model, the MRC Centres of Research Excellence . The new investments aim to foster challenge-led collaborative research in an environment which nurtures a positive research culture.

There have been many conversations in recent years about research culture, and the need for change has been clearly demonstrated. However, we haven’t explicitly identified the relevant ingredients and it is often assumed that everyone just knows what it is about.

To help understand what is meant by a positive research culture, I have found the Royal Society’s initiative, Research culture embedding inclusive excellence , very inspiring.

Their definition provides a good basis to build on:

Research culture encompasses the behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes and norms of our research communities. It influences researchers’ career paths and determines the way that research is conducted and communicated.

Embedding across our policies

As funders we have tried to embed these elements in our best research practice policies, as well as cross sector concordats. And more recently with the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment . These can be organised across 3 key principles, stating that:

• research is conducted with integrity, centred on reproducibility, responsible innovation, collaboration, interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity
• research is communicated to maximise impact, built on transparency and openness, and partnership with the public
• career paths, and training environment, are provided to recognise a diversity of talents, skills, and outputs, and embrace team science as the way of working

Future considerations and support for applicants

Applicants for our new MRC Centres of Research Excellence will be invited to consider these principles and describe what they will do to establish and communicate:

• day to day behaviours
• expectations
• norms that signal ‘this is the way we do things around here’

We understand that activities will need to be built over time, supported by existing, institutional programmes. We are developing a framework which will support applicants in their thinking as they move from their outline to a full application. The approach to research culture will be unique to a particular investment, but at a minimum the following elements will be addressed :

• team science
• good research practice and openness
• reward and incentives
• physical environment and infrastructure to nurture collaborations
• equality, diversity and inclusion

Looking forward to a positive future

A positive research culture is essential to deliver excellent research and we are taking the opportunity to embed this in the new funding model. I am really looking forward to new and innovative actions as they emerge to change our ways of working. Communities can learn from each other and co-develop best practice. We all have a role to play in building a positive research culture.

Find out more

Learn how UK Research and Innovation supports a healthy research and innovation culture .

Find out how we celebrate the diverse and broad impacts made by our research community through our MRC prize schemes . The new annual MRC Impact Prize recognises individuals and diverse teams that advance open science and team science. It also champions early-career researchers that are trailblazing change across the research culture and the wider research environment.

Top image:  Credit: Marco VDM, E+ via Getty Images

Share this page

• Share this page on Twitter
• Share this page on LinkedIn
• Share this page on Facebook

Géraldine Clément-Stoneham

Géraldine Clément-Stoneham is the Head of Knowledge Management and Scholarly Communication at the Medical Research Council, a part of UK Research and Innovation, where she leads on the development and implementation of open science policies.

This is the website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Let us know if you have feedback or would like to help improve our online products and services .

How Culture Shapes What People Want from AI

Stanford researchers explore how to build culturally inclusive and equitable AI by offering initial empirical evidence on cultural variations in people’s ideal preferences about AI. 

iStock/C arsten Brandt

If AI agents could play an active role in our human social life rather than simply operating in the background, would that be desirable? The answer may depend on your cultural perspective. When a team of Stanford researchers applied cultural psychology theory to study what people want from AI, they found clear associations between the cultural models of agency that are common in cultural contexts and the type of AI that is considered ideal. 

Today, the prevailing view in AI development often assumes people desire control over the technology, treating AI as a tool in service of individual goals and concerns. It is an impersonal, hierarchical relationship. But Stanford psychology researcher  Xiao Ge and postdoc researcher  Chunchen Xu say this view is not the way people everywhere think about AI, but instead it reflects the cultural model of agency that is prevalent in many European American middle-class cultural contexts. 

According to their research, a broader look at cultures across diverse groups suggests that many people have a different view of the role that AI could play. Some envision AI with a higher capacity to influence its surroundings (e.g., some people want AI to have feelings, emotions, and autonomy). In this interpretation, for example, some imagine intelligent machines that can act spontaneously and participate in their social situations.

“There is an urgent need to incorporate the perceptions, imaginings, concerns, and creativity of diverse groups in future AI developments. We want to enable AI stakeholders to increase representation of different worldviews in the design and use of AI, so that it can fulfill the needs of wider segments of the population,” Ge explains.

Drawing on independent and interdependent cultural models, and the results of two online surveys, the team has developed a theoretical framework for understanding people’s ideal relationship with AI, which they presented in a new paper, “ How Culture Shapes What People Want from AI .” Supported by the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI’s  Seed Grant Program , this work is spurring important conversations about the role of culture in defining mainstream conceptions of AI. 

The Foundations of Culture in HCI 

Many human-computer interaction (HCI) studies have investigated the impact of technology on people in different countries; however, few researchers to date have tried to “flip the conversation” to look at how culture can affect AI design or how AI products reflect cultural ideas.

“When HCI researchers consider culture, it tends to be at the later stages of development—for example, in terms of useability or user interface design. But our findings suggest that cultural factors may even shape the initial creation and design of technology as well as what designers imagine its potential benefits and outcomes to be,” says Jeanne Tsai, professor of psychology, director of the Stanford  Culture and Emotion Lab , and one of the paper’s co-authors.

Read the full study,  How Culture Shapes What People Want from AI

To arrive at a deeper understanding of culture and AI, the researchers applied a well-established cultural psychology framework for depicting variations in how different cultures tend to view “the self” and its relation to surrounding environments. In the independent model, individuals view themselves as unique and separate from others and the socio-physical context. By contrast, the interdependent model holds that everyone is connected fundamentally to other humans, as well as to their physical and social environments.

This framework also implicates whether individuals want and expect the environment to influence them. Researchers refer to this factor as having “capacities to influence.” People in some cultures tend to see the environment as a source of influence to guide their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, while others are less inclined to view their surrounding environments as an active source of agency.

“Using these two dimensions can help us discover ideal human-AI interactions according to different cultures, and they can be quite different than those that immediately come to mind in our predominantly individualist, middle-class contexts,” says co-author Hazel Rose Markus, professor of psychology and faculty director of the  Stanford SPARQ behavioral science center.

Through the Lens of Two Cultural Models 

Applying this cultural psychology framework, prior studies in behavioral science have established:

• People in  European American cultural contexts   tend to embrace an independent model of agency and see the person as a bigger source of influence than the environment. This cultural model represents people as more active, alive, capable, and in control than their environments. Furthermore, people will aim to change their environments to be more consistent with their preferences, desires, and beliefs.
• People in  Chinese cultural contexts   tend to favor an interdependent model of agency. Accordingly, they may view the boundaries between people and their surrounding environments as permeable and malleable. In this context, people may conceptualize the social and physical environment as encompassing them and prefer that the environment be more active, alive, and capable of exerting influence on people.
• People in African American cultural contexts adopt elements of both cultural models, and their preferences may be influenced by the experience with switching between predominantly independent contexts and predominantly Black contexts, which are often more interdependent. 

Against this backdrop, the Stanford researchers hypothesized that European Americans would seek control over AI more than Chinese respondents, while Chinese participants would seek connection with AI more than European Americans. And, if prior patterns held, African American preferences to control and connect with AI would lie between those of European American and Chinese cultures.

Similarly, on the topic of the environment influencing individuals, the team expected to find European Americans less likely to want AI to have influencing characteristics and Chinese more likely to prefer these characteristics, while African Americans’ preference would fall between the two.

Testing Theoretical Assumptions

To test the hypotheses, the team first created a survey to confirm that these three cultural groups do in fact adopt different models of the self and its relationship to the environment. 373 participants looked at seven variations of a graphic representing the relationship between the self and the environment, ranging from “The environment strongly influences the person” to “The person strongly influences the environment” and selected the picture that best described their ideal balance between the two. 

The pictorial 7-pt. scale (only 1, 4 and 7 are presented for illustration purposes) used to measure the ideal level and direction of influence between the self and the environment in the pilot study. 1 = “The environment strongly influences the person,” 7 = “The person strongly influences the environment.”

As expected, results of this study revealed cultural differences in the ideal level and direction of influence between the self and the environment.

Based on these initial findings, the team examined how these cultural models affected people’s preferences about AI. They fielded a study in which 348 participants read a short description of AI and then saw one of six randomly assigned scenarios of different AI applications in home management, well-being, teamwork, education, wildfire conservation, and manufacturing contexts. (For example, one scenario read: “Imagine that in the future a well-being management AI is developed to gather information about people’s physical and mental health conditions. It makes customized predictions and decisions to improve people’s well-being management.”) 

In the last step of the study, participants answered a list of questions about their preferences for AI in an ideal situation. The questions were designed to align with the independent/interdependent cultural models, as well as core HCI characteristics such as AI’s autonomy and its perceived emotionality.

Finding Evidence in Support of the Hypotheses

After analyzing the data, the research team suggested that culture shapes both people’s conceptions of what it means to be human and what people desire in their interactions with AI. Specifically, compared to European Americans, Chinese participants regarded it as less important to control AI but more important to have a sense of connection with AI. Meanwhile, European Americans preferred AI to have less capacity to influence — with less autonomy, spontaneity, and emotion.

African Americans aligned with European Americans in wanting control over AI, but they fell between European Americans and Chinese in terms of their desire to connect with AI. African American preferences for the optimal level of influencing capacity for AI was between European Americans and Chinese, as predicted. Notably, the researchers found that while Chinese participants placed the lowest importance of the three cultures on having control over AI, their average score still reflected a desire to have some control over the technology.

“There is a gold rush underway to optimize every urban function, from education to healthcare to banking, but there’s a serious lack of reflection and understanding of how culture shapes these conceptions,” says Ge. “Our work is filling an important gap in the literature, as well as in the practice of AI development.” 

The team acknowledges several limitations inherent in this preliminary approach that could be explored in future studies: 

• Sample sizes were relatively low for the surveys. 
• The definition of AI was intentionally very broad. Understanding how people feel about specific AI—chatbots or decision algorithms, for example—could provide even more insight.
• The study didn’t examine whether people’s reported preferences align with actual interactions with AI.

As a next step, they would like to focus on establishing the reliability and validity of the new measures they devised to capture people’s ideal models of self in relation to their environments. 

Contributions to the Field of HCI

According to co-authors Markus and Tsai, these findings present exciting new insights for the field of human-computer interaction. With this work, the team shows that it is possible to develop rigorous and systematic empirical approaches to examine culturally shaped preferences about AI purposes, forms, and functions. They also shed light on the importance of recognizing the implicit cultural defaults that are built into current models of human-computer interaction. From the perspective of many Western contexts, it is hard to imagine agency as shared or as outside the person. Outside Western contexts, this is possible, even obvious. 

“If we continue to rely on preexisting cultural models, we are likely to limit creativity and the potential of AI to improve the human condition across the globe,” says Xu. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine that if developers begin to rethink human agency and tap into a wider variety of cultural ideas, a new era of innovation could unfold, broadening AI’s potential societal and environmental benefits. 

Stanford HAI’s mission is to advance AI research, education, policy and practice to improve the human condition.  Learn more . 

More News Topics

Virginia Tech professor's research influences a historic expansion of Medicare’s mental health coverage

In the first half of 2024, approximately 43,000 mental health professionals opted to enroll as independent Medicare providers.

• Samantha Smith
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Copy address link to clipboard

In the last six months, the United States has seen the largest expansion of Medicare’s mental health coverage in history – and a Virginia Tech professor helped make it happen. 

Historically, the more than 60 million Americans covered by Medicare, which is federal health insurance for people older than 65 years old, were not able to access services from marriage and family therapists or mental health counselors. That is until a law, heavily influenced by research at Virginia Tech, went into effect in early 2024 .  

The law gave mental health professionals not previously covered the opportunity to enroll as Medicare providers. So far, about 43,000 mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists have opted in, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services , allowing those 60 million people covered by Medicare to have access to services they wouldn’t have had before.

Matthew Fullen , associate professor of counselor education at Virginia Tech, has been one of the nation’s leaders in this arena. For years, he’s been advocating for health care professionals to be able to accept Medicare coverage. And by working with the American Counseling Association (ACA), the National Board of Certified Counselors , and other organizations associated with the Medicare Mental Health Workforce Coalition, his ideas finally took hold and influenced policy.  

"Modernizing mental health access for Medicare recipients is incredibly timely,” said Fullen, who has worked at Virginia Tech for seven years. “Working alongside colleagues and graduate students to articulate why this change is needed has been the highlight of my career."

Why is the law important?

This law opened the doors for about 400,000 counselors and marriage and family therapists to accept Medicare payments. 

Those providers account for about 40 percent of America’s mental health workforce and have largely been unable to accept Medicare enrollees who couldn’t afford to pay out of pocket until now. 

So far this year, 36,000 licensed counselors and 7,000 licensed marriage and family therapists have enrolled as Medicare providers.  

According to the Administration for Community Living (ACL), the United States will see major growth in those covered by Medicare due to an aging population, which means the number of providers will need to increase to keep pace. Right now, there are roughly 65 million older adults covered by Medicare. The ACL predicts that number will hit 90 million to 95 million in the next 20 or 25 years. 

History of Fullen's work

Before the most recent update to Medicare coverage, the policy hadn’t been updated since 1989. 

Recognizing that this legislation was in desperate need of an update, Fullen led research by students and faculty at Virginia Tech, both through the School of Education and the Institute for Society, Culture and Environment , with the focus of defining and describing the impacts of the outdated Medicare policy. 

“The research that Dr. Fullen and his team were able to produce was, by all accounts, the central reason that this advocacy effort finally came to fruition,” said Gerard Lawson, interim director for the School of Education . “There were thousands upon thousands of older adults, veterans, and individuals with disabilities who were in desperate need of mental health support and were waiting months for appointments. This was especially true for people living in rural areas. Stakeholders that had been struggling with this issue for decades needed data to help legislators understand the scale and scope of the problem, and Dr. Fullen’s research did just that.”   

That research then contributed to a larger conversation at the legislative level, helping lawmakers understand how the outdated policy had tangible negative effects in communities nationwide. 

“What that research trajectory helped to define was, ‘How many providers are being impacted by this outdated policy?'” said Fullen. “Then, we added qualitative research focused on individual Medicare recipients who had not been able to find services because so much of the mental health workforce was not included.”

According to Lawson, research like this is the bread and butter of the School of Education’s counselor education program . 

“This project and the positive impact made by this research and advocacy are right in the wheelhouse for faculty in our counselor education program,” said Lawson. “The faculty in that program are actively engaged in research and advocacy to address thorny issues like this one, as well as school climate and working conditions, rural school counseling, serving LGBT and gende-expansive clients, anti-racist pedagogy, and more. Research and advocacy go hand in hand, and the counselor education faculty are improving the lives of individuals who are receiving mental health services on a day-to-day basis.”   

Why did it take so long?

The actual administrative process of making changes to the policy isn’t easy. Medicare is federal law, meaning any revisions to the policy require an act of Congress. But as former chair of the American Counseling Association’s government relations committee, Fullen is no stranger to the work it takes to make legislative change. 

While there were some obvious hurdles, years of advocacy work paired with the change in public discourse helped change the tide. 

“Thanks to Dr. Fullen’s dedication to the counseling field and support for increased mental health access, mental health counselors, and marriage and family therapists are seen as major actors in addressing the needs of older adults with mental health conditions and increasingly sought by behavioral health systems and health care providers for their expertise in the older adult space,” said Joel Miller, executive consultant with the National Board for Certified Counselors and Affiliates.    

Much of that advocacy work was spearheaded by the Medicare Mental Health Workforce Coalition . The CEO of the American Counseling Association, which is a part of the coalition, explained that Fullen’s work has been “pivotal” in moving this landmark legislation forward.  

“His relentless advocacy and active participation in the Medicare Mental Health Workforce Coalition, along with his seminal 2019 research which analyzed the impact of the Medicare coverage gap on counseling professionals, is helping to provide those in need with greater access to essential mental health services,” said the association's CEO Shawn Boynes.  

Another catalyst that helped change perceptions of mental health was the pandemic because it pushed the needs of often overlooked populations into the spotlight. While a study from the Administration for Community Living shows that older adults fared better in terms of mental health during the height of the pandemic when compared to younger generations, isolation during COVID-19’s peak made discussing mental health more mainstream. 

While changing federal law is no easy feat, Fullen said there was overwhelming bipartisan support behind the policy updates. 

What’s next? 

Now that licensed counselors and marriage and family therapists are approved providers under Medicare, Fullen said his job on the panel is to continue to advise the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on mental health policies. 

Looking forward, Fullen said a major goal is to aim for as many providers to enroll as possible. With the influx of new providers, there will also need to be training to help prepare them on how to best help older adults specifically. 

Fullen’s appointment to the federal Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education is for two years, and he is one of several professionals on the panel focusing on mental health.  

“It's a unique opportunity to represent the mental health community,” said Fullen. “It’s like adding to a part of the conversation that has really not been there before because we didn't get invited to these panels when we weren't part of the program.”

Jenny Kincaid Boone

540-314-7207

• College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences
• College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences research
• Institute for Society, Culture and Environment
• School of Education
• Transdisciplinary research

Related Content

• Human resources management

Getty Images

Women in tech statistics: The latest research and trends

In the tech sector, women still trail their male counterparts in terms of pay, leadership roles and representation..

• David Needle

Women are an evergrowing part of the tech landscape, but inequality in pay and opportunities persists.

Some issues are systemic; in education, there's a gap in science, technology, engineering and mathematics ( STEM ) degrees, while in business, workplace culture issues accompany ongoing pay inequality.

This article also details some of the key challenges and success stories of women in the tech workplace, including several successful female CEOs and other women-led companies.

Women in tech statistics and trends

Here's a short list of some of the biggest issues facing women in tech :

Gaps in STEM degrees

Opportunities in tech begin with education. Though women outperform men academically on average, there is a big disparity between the college degrees earned by men and women in STEM. At the undergraduate level in the United States, women's participation in science and engineering (S&E) depends on the specific field of study. According to a National Science Foundation report , women earned 24% of engineering bachelor's degrees in 2021. That number was 22% in computer and information sciences. However, a 2024 report by The National Girls Collaborative Project found women earned 50% of all S&E degrees in the U.S.

Globally, according to World Bank data, 107 of 114 economies had fewer female STEM graduates than males, and 18% of women chose STEM subjects for their post-secondary education, compared to 35% of men.

Employment gaps

Women are a clear minority in the STEM workforce -- in stark contrast to non-STEM jobs where women represent close to half the workforce. That said, U.S. Census data shows significant gains from 8% of STEM workers in 1970 to 27% in 2019.

A study by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from July 2022 found that women were 40% less likely to work in engineering, while 33% were more likely to work in math and over 90% more likely to work in science than in technology sector jobs.

Among women who do pursue a career in STEM, 61% work in fields related to social sciences , while only 15% are in engineering jobs.

There is evidence of change and opportunity for women pursuing a career in STEM across industry segments. Many companies created and continue to contribute to educational programs designed to help more women pursue a career in STEM. Government agencies like the National Security Agency (NSA) are on board, too.

"We have a lot of strong women leaders here. But I think we face the same challenges that any organization does, especially a predominantly military organization, where we're still working through the balance of women being visible and at the table," said Kristina Walter, director of the NSA's Future-Ready Workforce Initiative, in a roundtable discussion on the issue. "And I think what we found is we need to be inclusive of that environment. Women have a lot to offer in that space."

Walter also noted her group met or exceeded its goal for the last several years to hire 40% women. She said the agency recognizes hiring people from across different segments of society better reflects the American people the NSA serves. Another speaker added that the NSA's Cybersecurity Collaboration Center is more than 55% female.

Successful organizations of all kinds are recognizing the importance of workplace diversity, particularly in tech.

"People tend to be motivated by what impacts them, and if no one is working on those problems they won't get solved," said Laura Yecies, CEO of Bone Health Technologies , which works to prevent osteoporosis, a disease that overwhelmingly affects women.

Race and ethnicity

In addition to gender discrimination and inequality, the technology industry faces disparity in racial and ethnic hiring. For example, African Americans make up 13% to 14% of the total U.S. population, but 6% to 9% of the total workforce in STEM fields. African American women are only 2% of scientists and engineers in the United States, according to the National Science Foundation.

The federal government's "Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities" 2023 report suggests women, and Hispanics in particular, have made significant progress over the past decade, both in terms of increased representation in the STEM workforce and their participation in higher education. However, those broad patterns are not universal across all STEM occupations and fields of study.

For example, women are a much smaller proportion of the college-educated workforce in computer and mathematical sciences, biological sciences, physical sciences and engineering than in the social sciences. Separately, underrepresented minorities make up a third of the workforce in STEM jobs that typically do not require a college degree for entry. However, those jobs tend to have the lowest salaries and highest unemployment in STEM.

About 3% of the STEM workforce are people with disabilities. Although the number of STEM workers with at least one disability increased since 2011, their representation in the STEM workforce has remained unchanged from a decade ago.

To many forward-thinking leaders, diversity in a team doesn't just happen by chance. It requires a proactive effort on the part of the organization.

"I think of it like going to the gym. The investment compounds over time, and you get stronger and better," said Eden Full Goh, founder and CEO of Mobot , a robotics testing platform for mobile apps. "Prioritizing diversity is a key exercise to building organizational health."

Retention gaps

While the tech industry struggles to attract more women, it also struggles to retain them. One issue is the disparity in promotions. A McKinsey/LeanIn.org study found that 86 women are promoted to manager for every 100 men at the same level, but for technical roles, the study found only 52 women are promoted to manager for every 100 men.

In its "Women in the Workplace" 2021 study , McKinsey explored the barriers women in tech face. One key finding: Women are not promoted as much as men early in their careers, a building block to success. In this case, women held only 26% of first-level manager positions.

The study recommended that companies offer women in tech more opportunities to develop a wider range of skills, as well as structured guidance on professional development.

In an S&P Global Women in Technology report , 57% of women respondents said work-life balance features such as flexible work hours and remote work options increased job satisfaction. Flexibility was a top priority for women in tech across the board -- not just those with children at home.

Yecies of Bone Health Technologies said the tech industry must do more to help women identify opportunities for them to thrive.

"Women enjoy solving problems, and that's what engineers do," she said. "A lot of us want to improve the world and have a positive effect on people by things like solving climate problems and building robots for the mobility impaired. I think if you focus on those elements of the impact you can have, it will tend to draw more women."

Workplace culture issues

A company's culture affects not only employee performance but who is hired. Even the language used in job descriptions can stop a potential applicant from applying in the first place. To combat this, businesses must make every effort to identify and remove bias from job descriptions and ensure the hiring process includes interviews with multiple team members of different genders.

One survey of women in tech showed that slightly more than half report gender inequality, discrimination or sexual harassment in male-dominated environments.

To address gender inequality, businesses must embed diversity and inclusion into company culture from day one. One way businesses do this is by hiring female leaders early in their inception. Women who see female role models in senior positions also see an organization that values diversity.

Another issue is visibility. Women are often tasked with "invisible work" -- such as day-to-day tasks that maintain the status quo -- and earn credit for being diligent, but not strategic. Businesses need to ensure everyone has equal access to strategic projects.

In a WeAreTechWomen survey , 75% of women said that at least some men in their organizations were not allies. About two-thirds of those surveyed mentioned "talking over" and "not listening to them" as the main reason for their response. On the flip side, 19% said they see all or most men as allies and most of those said that men's willingness to give credit for achievements was the best way for men to become allies.

Lack of women's representation

Women are in the minority in the tech industry, from the general workforce through management and leadership roles.

Take Zippia's example of the 325,000 software engineers in the U.S.; nearly half, 48.5%, are white. Only 8.1% are Latino or Hispanic, while 4.4% are Black. Little more than one in five -- 22% -- are women, and 8% are LGBT.

In recent years, groups such as Latinas in Tech have formed to help support opportunities for minorities in tech careers. There's also Black Women Talk Tech , which sponsors events and offers other resources including job boards. BWTT said it's the largest collective of Black women tech founders including 500 startups.

Leila Powell, Ph.D., had a love of science growing up and her parents supported her decision to pursue a career in astrophysics where she used supercomputers to study the evolution of galaxies. Later, she transitioned to cybersecurity and is currently the lead security data scientist at Panaseer. "For me, it's always been about having an impact and solving hard problems. I'm also passionate about increased representation in tech and related fields. The percentage of women in senior roles is not representative of their ability to do those roles and I want to help with that and make sure there is a level playing field; we're not there yet," Powell said.

Among other efforts, Powell co-founded a networking group called We Empower Diverse Startups. Powell stated, "Tech is so critical, so important to our lives that you can't have 50% of society, women, left out."

Read more here on how diversity hinges on root-cause analysis .

Pay gaps for women in tech

Hired.com has been tracking gender disparity in pay among tech workers for several years and hasn't seen much improvement. In 2017 and 2018, the company found that men were offered higher salaries than women 63% of the time. In 2019 the gap narrowed a bit to 60% but returned to 63% in 2020.

A recent 10-year study showed women employed in computer science jobs earned about 86.6 cents for every dollar that men earned, which is an improvement on the overall labor force average of 82 cents, but nowhere near equal.

Men mostly hold top-level tech positions like CIO and CTO. In late 2022, Zippia reported that women account for only 18% of the CIO and chief technical officer roles in 1,000 of the largest U.S. tech companies, while 19% of senior vice presidents and 15% of CEOs in the tech industry are women.

Why AI is an opportunity for women in tech

Still, experts insist AI's growing impact on society promises to be a golden opportunity for women to enter and excel in the tech field.

As one example, Jodi Baxter, vice president of 5G and IoT connectivity at Telus Communications, said AI gives women the chance to use their interpersonal and communication skills for training AI without biases. She added these soft skills are at least as important as technology skills to create better outcomes in AI models.

AI also threatens to eliminate some jobs and curtail the importance of others, but Baxter said women can limit those disruptions by embracing generative AI. She also noted that organizations are responsible for providing diverse sets of information to avoid bias, especially gender bias, in human-made AI models.

Significantly, women already hold many positions leading the AI charge, including those in human resources, educational leadership, change management and ethical AI governance .

An IBM blog post details how numerous women have already made significant contributions to AI development , responsible innovation and ethics. These include Kay Firth Butterfield, the world's first chief AI ethics officer; Elham Tabassi of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, spearheading initiatives on ethical AI standards; Miriam Vogel from EqualAI and NAIAC, championing AI equality; Paula Goldman from Salesforce; and Navrina Singh from Credo AI. Another key leader is Fei-Fei Li from Stanford's Human-Centered AI Institute, well known for her contributions to AI image recognition and advocacy for inclusive and ethical AI development.

The history of women in technology

Women have played a key role in advancing technology and computer science since its creation. For example, computer pioneer Grace Hopper devised the theory of machine-independent programming languages, which led to the creation of COBOL -- an early high-level programming language still in use today. Actress and inventor Hedy Lamarr filed a patent for frequency-hopping technology in 1941 -- a precursor to Wi-Fi, GPS and Bluetooth connectivity technologies now used by billions worldwide.

As author Marguerite Zientara wrote in her 1987 book, Women, Technology and Power: Ten Stars and the History They Made , the rise of personal computers in the 1980s and the dawn of the Internet Age a decade later featured women gaining powerful positions in the tech industry, including IBM executive Joyce Wrenn and Open Systems co-founder Ann Winblad. While their companies differed greatly, these women shared the basic characteristics of determination, a belief in themselves, high energy levels and a willingness to work hard.

While female CEOs, executives and managers remain a minority at tech firms, there's been progress and high-profile success stories. Overall, the share of female CEOs among Fortune 500 companies reached an all-time high of 10.4% in 2023, and a quarter of those 52 leaders became CEOs in the last year, including many in tech.

Today's tech leaders -- many are women

Among the most high-profile examples of female tech leaders are Safra Catz, CEO of tech giant Oracle; and Lisa Su, the CEO of chip company AMD and the person widely credited with the company's turnaround success these past several years.

Other leaders include Anne Wojcicki, the co-founder and CEO of personal genomics site 23andMe; and her co-founder, biologist Linda Avey. Then there's Melanie Perkins, the Australian co-founder of Canva, a graphic design platform with more than 55 million users worldwide.

Twins Anna and Kerry Wang are part of a new generation of female tech leaders whose school opportunities encouraged the pursuit of a variety of interests. Anna said she remembers taking her first coding class as a 13-year-old at a public high school, a summer program that taught Java.

"I fell in love with how [computer science] is the manifestation of problem-solving," she said. "I spent many afternoons that summer just banging on the keyboard, working through algorithms."

The Wang sisters, whose Ph.D.-holding parents place a high value on STEM education, are co-founders of Searchlight.ai , an AI-powered talent evaluation platform built on a "bias-free" AI engine. It's designed to understand competencies, soft skills, working styles and job requirements. The company recently announced its acquisition by Multiverse , which will integrate the technology into its services.

Kerry said the increasing number of female tech leaders promises a positive trickle-down effect, both in modeling a path forward to leadership and as mentors to future leaders.

Anna said they quickly learned to tell their value proposition story while pitching to investors for venture capital funding as a startup.

"You learn to put yourself out there," she added, "And you have to have an almost unreasonable faith in yourself to see it pay off."

How to create a future for women in tech

As the tech industry booms along, the hope is that opportunities continue to grow for everyone, including women who often don't have as broad a network in the male-dominated industry.

Here are some ways to open doors for women in tech and help them to advance their careers:

• Provide STEM education at an early age. Traditionally, women have gravitated toward liberal arts degrees. Girls must be made aware the door to the sciences is open by offering them STEM education opportunities .
• Mentoring. Mentorship is a pillar of support. This can be via professional groups that provide a community of like-minded individuals or one-on-one.
• Keep skills relevant and up to date. This can be done by taking certification and university classes , along with attending industry conferences and other events.
• Eliminate bias in the hiring process. This can be done by hiring women into leadership roles early in a company's inception, creating longer candidate shortlists when making hiring decisions, and doing blind auditions, in which the interviewer can see and hear the candidate's work without actually seeing the candidate.
• Close the gender pay gap. If men and women with the same education and skill set do the same job in a given company, their pay should be equal. It's time to figure out why a pay gap exists and remove it.
• Be proactive. There are always opportunities and problems to solve. Accomplished women step up, take action and demonstrate accountability.

David Needle is a veteran technology reporter based in Silicon Valley. He was formerly news editor at Infoworld, editor of Computer Currents and TabTimes and West Coast bureau chief for both InformationWeek and Internet.com.

How to get more women leaders in tech: It's not just a numbers game

How HR can offer the support women need in the workplace

Facing the edge: The glass cliff at a glance

Books to read about women in STEM

Dig Deeper on Human resources management

More than 30% of girls in tech don’t become tech undergrads

Number of women taking computing degrees grows

Top 10 women in tech and diversity in tech stories of 2022

Network scanning is a procedure for identifying active devices on a network by employing a feature or features in the network ...

Wavelength is the distance between identical points, or adjacent crests, in the adjacent cycles of a waveform signal propagated ...

A subnet, or subnetwork, is a segmented piece of a larger network. More specifically, subnets are a logical partition of an IP ...

Endpoint security is the protection of endpoint devices against cybersecurity threats.

Cyber attribution is the process of tracking and identifying the perpetrator of a cyberattack or other cyber operation.

SSH (Secure Shell or Secure Socket Shell) is a network protocol that gives users -- particularly systems administrators -- a ...

Return on investment (ROI) is a crucial financial metric investors and businesses use to evaluate an investment's efficiency or ...

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a strategy undertaken by companies to not just grow profits, but also to take an active ...

Digital labor is work that's performed by robotic process automation (RPA) systems and interactive applications, including ...

Diversity, equity and inclusion is a term used to describe policies and programs that promote the representation and ...

Payroll software automates the process of paying salaried, hourly and contingent employees.

Organizational network analysis (ONA) is a quantitative method for modeling and analyzing how communications, information, ...

The 360-degree customer view is a comprehensive approach to understanding customers by compiling their individual data from ...

A virtual agent -- sometimes called an intelligent virtual agent (IVA) -- is a software program or cloud service that uses ...

First call resolution (FCR) is when contact center agents properly address a customer's needs the first time they call so there ...

share this!

July 22, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

Researchers are exploring new ways to learn that make science more relevant to everyday life, and more fun

by Andrew Dunne, Horizon: The EU Research & Innovation Magazine

Frank Täufer, a scientific assistant at Campus Wiesengut—the University of Bonn's ecological teaching and research farm—asked a group of visiting 8-year-olds to speculate on why the rye plants in his field were all different heights. He was surprised by their insightful range of responses.

Some of the children suggested that the tall plants at the farm received more sunlight. Others thought there could be different types of rye in the field, or that insects may be blighting the crop. One student, after digging up a plant to inspect its roots, thought that the soil must be different across the field.

"They really asked questions and thought of ideas that I wouldn't have myself," said Täufer. "I regularly ask these questions to my university students , and they don't have as many ideas. And none of them has ever dug up a plant to look at the roots."

Taking children outside the classroom

Täufer's work is part of the three-year MULTIPLIERS project that aims to explore ways of making science more appealing to young people .

They are doing this through the creation of what they call Open Science Communities, or OSCs. The idea is to create collaborative networks among schools, universities, informal education providers, museums, local associations, and industry and civil society in order to expand the opportunities for students to learn about science in real-world settings—like the farm.

"I think it's very important to bring students outside the classroom in order to have authentic themes to work on and to make learning about science relevant to everyday life ," said Professor Annette Scheersoi, a specialist in sustainability science education from the University of Bonn and coordinator of MULTIPLIERS.

"When you are interested, you remember better, but you also connect more and feel the value and relevance," she said.

Connecting science and real life

OSCs have so far been set up in six European countries: Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. Students in all six countries were given the opportunity to interact with science experts from a wide range of backgrounds to explore science-based solutions for modern-day problems.

The idea is to help young people relate to the real-life science challenges we face every day, ranging from antimicrobial resistance to clean water and sanitation.

In Barcelona, for example, secondary school students were invited to apply what they learned in chemistry classes to measure air pollution in the school playground and at home. Then they presented the results.

In Germany, Slovenia and Sweden, students took to the forest to learn about sustainable forestry and biodiversity. With the guidance of local foresters and scientists, students studied different trees up close and made decisions on whether they should be felled or not.

"The approach was to consider forestry as a complex dilemma with trade-offs between the ecosystem and wood production," Scheersoi said.

Multiplying the impact

Crucial also for Scheersoi has been the multiplier effect—turning the students into teachers and giving them the chance to share their newfound knowledge with others.

Schoolchildren on the ecological farm invited their parents to a tasting session where they discussed the benefits of organic produce. In the forest, parents were invited to a Forest Day under the trees, where the children shared what they had learned.

Students have also been encouraged to share their knowledge by creating podcasts, science blogs, or organizing science fairs for families. Now the hope is to build on this work and further embed the approach beyond the project.

"Across MULTIPLIERS we have seen how students, teachers and outside science experts have engaged in these lessons. We want these networks to not only stay, but to grow, bringing in more people and bringing forward this new way of learning for students," said Scheersoi.

Science for sustainability

As part of its open science policy, the EU is supporting open schooling for science education, recognizing that Europe needs more scientists, including citizen scientists.

This is something that is also important to Jelena Kajganović, a sustainability expert at Geonardo, a Hungarian innovation and technology company active in the energy, environment and sustainable development fields.

Kajganović led a three-year project called OTTER which, like MULTIPLIERS, aimed to inspire a different approach to science learning and connect students to real-world challenges outside the classroom. They call this approach education outside the classroom (EOC).

Taking learning out of the school setting through things like outdoor activities and fieldtrips, has proven positive effects, says Kajganović. OTTER investigated how EOC could also help improve the acquisition of new knowledge and skills, specifically in the field of environmental sustainability.

"The core ideas behind OTTER are how to make science education more attractive, how to encourage students to learn and apply their knowledge," she said.

Although Kajganović observes a general apathy towards science in many classrooms, she sees this as untapped potential to do more to connect learning with pressing sustainability challenges.

Working with partners in Finland, Hungary, Ireland and Spain, OTTER sought to connect science lessons in the classroom with local issues. Very quickly students in OTTER schools began to link theory and practice.

In one school, near Barcelona, a group of 14-year-olds took samples from the local river to test water quality and were alarmed by the results. Based on their findings, the students organized an online petition calling for the river to be cleaned up.

"By testing the water, they could see the problem and they could see the connection with their own lives. It really clicked in their heads," said Kajganović.

Sharing knowledge across Europe

To spread the impact of their work further, the OTTER team created an online learning platform with a range of interactive teaching materials that educators can use to help them carry out education outside the classroom activities.

Looking ahead, OTTER now hopes to get teachers across Europe to use the platform to explore ways to get involved in outdoor science learning. Longer term, Kajganović believes it could spark a new way of thinking about science and inspire the next generation.

"I would really like to see our approach to science education changing by giving young people more space to think about science and its application in their lives," she said. "In terms of sustainability, if we don't solve our problems, no one will, and it was amazing to see young people taking the lead."

• MULTIPLIERS
• EU open science policy
• European Research Area

Provided by Horizon: The EU Research & Innovation Magazine

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Saturday Citations: A rare misstep for Boeing; mouse jocks and calorie restriction; human brains in sync

5 hours ago

Flood of 'junk': How AI is changing scientific publishing

11 hours ago

135-million-year-old marine crocodile sheds light on Cretaceous life

21 hours ago

Researchers discover new material for optically-controlled magnetic memory

A new mechanism for shaping animal tissues

23 hours ago

NASA tests deployment of Roman Space Telescope's 'visor'

Aug 9, 2024

How do butterflies stick to branches during metamorphosis?

Historic fires trapped in Antarctic ice yield key information for climate models

Hubble spotlights a supernova

New technology uses light to engrave erasable 3D images

Relevant physicsforums posts, incandescent bulbs in teaching.

4 hours ago

Sources to study basic logic for precocious 10-year old?

Jul 21, 2024

Free Abstract Algebra curriculum in Urdu and Hindi.

Jul 20, 2024

Kumon Math and Similar Programs

Jul 19, 2024

AAPT 2024 Summer Meeting Boston, MA (July 2024) - are you going?

Jul 4, 2024

How is Physics taught without Calculus?

Jun 25, 2024

More from STEM Educators and Teaching

Related Stories

Exploring challenges in learning for nursing students in Morocco

May 6, 2024

New approach to teaching computer science could broaden the subject's appeal

May 23, 2023

Citizen science project blends school curriculum to create eco warriors

Dec 12, 2023

Facilitating learning chemistry with conceptual modeling

Nov 27, 2023

New research shows students' knowledge and perceptions of active learning declined during pandemic-era teaching

Feb 9, 2024

Q&A: Experts discuss how best to educate people about climate change

Jan 23, 2024

Recommended for you

The 'knowledge curse': More isn't necessarily better

Aug 7, 2024

Visiting an art exhibition can make you think more socially and openly—but for how long?

Aug 6, 2024

Autonomy boosts college student attendance and performance

Jul 31, 2024

Study reveals young scientists face career hurdles in interdisciplinary research

Jul 29, 2024

Transforming higher education for minority students: Minor adjustments, major impacts

Communicating numbers boosts trust in climate change science, research suggests

Jul 26, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Raygun becomes viral sensation during breaking performance at 2024 Paris Olympics: Social media reacts

Breaking , more commonly known as breakdancing, made its debut as an Olympic sport this week at the 2024 Paris Games , with 17 B-girls and 16 B-boys making their way to France with the hopes of securing a gold medal.

On the first day of competition, viewers from across the world were treated to a different kind of introduction — not to the sport itself, but one of its athletes.

Though she was a long way from winning a gold medal, likely no breaker Friday captured the imagination of the international audience more than Rachael Gunn, an Australian breaker who competes under the name “Raygun.”

REQUIRED READING: Follow USA TODAY's coverage of the 2024 Paris Olympics

Raygun went 0-3 in her head-to-head competitions Friday — falling to Logistx of the United States, Syssy of France and eventual silver medalist Nicka of Lithuania by a combined score of 54-0 — and failed to record a point across those three matches, but for what she lacked in smoothly executed moves, she made up for in the hearts she won over with her demeanor.

Raygun’s short-lived Olympic experience made her a celebrity, one who people became even more enamored with once they learned more about her.

The 36-year-old Gunn, who was one of the oldest qualifiers in the breaking competition, has a PhD in cultural studies and is a college professor at Macquarie University in Sydney. Her research focuses primarily on breaking, street dance and hip-hop culture while her work draws on “cultural theory, dance studies, popular music studies, media, and ethnography.”

“In 2023, many of my students didn’t believe me when I told them I was training to qualify for the Olympics, and were shocked when they checked Google and saw that I qualified,” Gunn said to CNBC earlier this month .

Unlike much of her competition in Paris, Gunn took up break dancing later in life. She didn’t enter her first battle until 2012.

On Friday, a person who began the day as a little-known academic ended it as a viral worldwide sensation.

Here’s a sampling of the reaction to Raygun and her performance:

2024 PARIS OLYMPICS: Meet the members of Team USA competing at the 2024 Paris Olympics

Social media reacts to Raygun’s breaking performance at 2024 Paris Olympics

I could live all my life and never come up with anything as funny as Raygun, the 36-year-old Australian Olympic breakdancer pic.twitter.com/1uPYBxIlh8 — mariah (@mariahkreutter) August 9, 2024

Give Raygun the gold right now #breakdancing pic.twitter.com/bMtAWEh3xo — n★ (@nichstarr) August 9, 2024

my five year old niece after she says “watch this!” : pic.twitter.com/KBAMSkgltj — alex (@alex_abads) August 9, 2024

I'd like to personally thank Raygun for making millions of people worldwide think "huh, maybe I can make the Olympics too" pic.twitter.com/p5QlUbkL2w — Bradford Pearson (@BradfordPearson) August 9, 2024

The Aussie B-Girl Raygun dressed as a school PE teach complete with cap while everyone else is dressed in funky breaking outfits has sent me. It looks like she’s giving her detention for inappropriate dress at school 🤣 #Olympics pic.twitter.com/lWVU3myu6C — Georgie Heath🎙️ (@GeorgieHeath27) August 9, 2024

There has not been an Olympic performance this dominant since Usain Bolt’s 100m sprint at Beijing in 2008. Honestly, the moment Raygun broke out her Kangaroo move this competition was over! Give her the #breakdancing gold 🥇 pic.twitter.com/6q8qAft1BX — Trapper Haskins (@TrapperHaskins) August 9, 2024

my dog on the lawn 30 seconds after i've finished bathing him pic.twitter.com/A5aqxIbV3H — David Mack (@davidmackau) August 9, 2024

My wife at 3AM: I think I heard one of the kids Me: No way, they are asleep *looks at baby monitor* pic.twitter.com/Ubhi6kY4w4 — Wes Blankenship (@Wes_nship) August 9, 2024

me tryna get the duvet off when i’m too hot at night #olympics pic.twitter.com/NM4Fb2MEmX — robyn (@robynjournalist) August 9, 2024

Raygun really hit them with the "Tyrannosaurus." pic.twitter.com/ZGCMjhzth9 — Mike Beauvais (@MikeBeauvais) August 9, 2024

Raygun (AUS) https://t.co/w2lxLRaW2x — Peter Nygaard (@RetepAdam) August 9, 2024