Culture shaping research

Recently I’ve become interested in how all the work on improving research culture interacts with the how, who, what and where of the research itself. In the UK, funders are increasingly concerned with how research is carried out, that is the culture. The UK Government’s R&D People & Culture strategy defines the target culture as:

There is a positive, inclusive and respectful culture that attracts a diversity of people to work and thrive in R&D in the UK and encourages them to stay.

When I speak with university research leaders, many are grappling with what this means, be it in order to meet REF and UKRI expectations, align with university missions or improve the experience and success of researchers including doctoral students. Very often they are unsure how to support early career researchers and doctoral students to understand what these expectations mean.

There is a huge body of work focussed on creating a positive research culture, for example with the aim of improving the well-being and progression of doctoral students. It is incredibly important work, and done properly will improve the experience of all researchers, as it will not be effective if carried out in isolation.

But what if we end up assimilating a more diverse body of researchers into a research paradigm that remains rooted in the privileged perspectives of white, privileged, European men?

I believe that in order to assure a future where an increasingly diverse body of researchers can thrive, we need to consciously address the interaction between research culture and research. In my discipline of Astronomy, the explicit culture is that data is the arbiter of truth. But in practice many fundamental research questions, such as the origin of life, the formation of stars and planets, or the fate of the universe are being contested via individual personalities, priorities and interests. The implicit culture is one of individual leaders drawing together groups of supporters.

Without making any judgement on how the research “should” be conducted, nonetheless making the implicit explicit is essential to a healthy culture. Otherwise it is difficult to evaluate and make adjustments to improve that culture. It allows the convention that science is separate from the identities, personalities and life experiences of scientists to perpetuate, rather than it being a human endeavour with all the complexities that embodies.

In other academic disciplines, critical examination of the concepts, assumptions, modes and methods of carrying out research is a core element of training for doctoral students. I can’t comment on what I haven’t experience. But this diversity of approach, coupled with a public perception that research finds fixed definitive “answers” that is not even true for scientific results, led me into wanting to complement the essential work on positive research cultures with work to make explicit the interaction between research cultures (explicit or implicit) and how research is conducted. It may be that this is as important to the overall success of researchers as a positive culture that supports their wellbeing and success while they are students.

As a first step, I’ve worked with Dr Cristina Izura to pilot a survey with UK doctoral students that suggests they have both an understanding of and an interest in how research culture shapes the value given to their research. I’m looking forwards to sharing the results at the 3rd UKCGE Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Conference in Leeds on the 4th November 2025. I’ll report back my experiences here shortly afterwards.