What is <i>real</i> success in nursing research?

Who and what can define what success is in research? The United Kingdom's seven-yearly Research Excellence Framework and recent anniversaries such as the 40th of the Journal of Advanced Nursing prove an opportunity to look back and assess progress made and successes achieved. But how much do we do this as individual researchers? Research success in nursing occurs mostly in a small disciplinary goldfish bowl. While the profession has progressed in terms of the number of journals, professors, and volume of nursing research, whether this research and those leading it have been successful is debatable (Thompson, 2003a, 2003b; Thompson & Watson, 2009). The low volume of citations that the papers of many full professors of nursing in the UK have attracted has been documented (Thompson & Watson, 2010; Watson, McDonagh, & Thompson, 2017). Sill too few nursing-focused papers are published in more impactful or even specialist interdisciplinary journals. There seems to be a marked contrast between the lens through which many established nurse academics see themselves and traditional indicators of success in research. While nurse academics acclaim that they publish their research in niche journals to ensure that specialist audiences read and use it, this seems to have little influence on the extremely low citation rates that many papers in nursing receive. Many nurse academics continue to publish in an extremely narrow range of journals—most of moderate or low impact. While this may minimize the likelihood of manuscript rejection, it does little to serve the longer term interests of nursing research. Prioritizing expedience and quantity of work over quality and visibility, alas all too often the relatively modest academic productivity, is accompanied with none too modest entitlement. How can nursing research be more truly successful in the broader scientific and other communities which access and use it? Firstly, it is important to recognize that success is not mind dependent (Clark & Sousa, 2018). Rather: it is “out there” and determined by a complex fusion of peer and community recognition both in the present and over time (Clark & Sousa, 2018). While the individual may perceive their work as successful, this should not be confused or conflated with quality or actual success. Taking a realist perspective, personal perceptions of success are different from actual success. When specifying what constitutes success and evaluating whether this has been achieved, researchers should reflect, be open, and look beyond their own perceptions to consider how others see their work and how they can ascertain their degree of success from the perspectives of others. There are many forms of success in research (Clark & Thompson, 2015). Some work leads to extensive local change—other research to more modest global change. Some work is extremely creative and innovative—other work solid and steady. While it remains vital and vibrant that research success comes in many forms, not everything can be seen as success (Clark & Thompson, 2013). There remains a clear vested interest in individual researchers perpetuating and peddling “success narratives” despite their own research being comparatively more slight than this spin. Yet, criteria for academic success are actually well agreed upon across disciplines. Grant dollars, impact, and influence of publications, social reputation: all are important indicators of success. Sometimes we only see what we want to see and it is tempting to see or render everything as successful—the publication in the predatory journal, the institutional collaboration, the grant application made. Yet, how many of these are truly successful? How many would stand up in other disciplines as lasting and significant contributions? Metrics do not mean everything—but they do not mean nothing either. It is all too tempting to be dismissive of or blind to metrics. We have heard it all: “My complex work cannot be reduced to mere numbers…”; “My work is for specialist audiences who don't fit well with the way science normally works”; “I have had 17 publications last year…” Thus, we take a pass on the way science is normally evaluated—via its widespread uptake by peers in and beyond our fields, as measured and measurable via conventional metrics, such as citation rates and the degree of contribution the research is seen to have made. While metrics should always be used responsibility and measures such as H indexes have clear weaknesses—such as privileging seniority—an aggregate of measures provides a well-rounded assessment of a scholar's work. While reputation remains social, increasingly this can be captured. Research success lies in a complex fusion of quantity of output, quality of output, and visibility of output (Clark & Thompson, 2016). This is because research is extreme knowledge work (Clark & Sousa, 2018)—it raises a distinctively high number of choices and challenges for us every day. Alas, nurse academics remain not only content but also seemingly proud to be working at the margins of the mainstream. Publication strategies, such as they exist, tend to be safe, steady, and avowedly without true broader aspiration. Prioritizing volume of publications over the visibility and quality of published outputs remains an all too common trend in North American nursing research. This prioritization of the number of outputs risks forgetting that science is always about the nature not the number of research contributions. Researchers should be encouraged to develop deliberative publishing strategies that reconcile quality, quantity, and visibility and prioritize more substantial work of higher quality and relevance that is more likely to be accepted in mainstream journals. How did we get to this state of nursing research? Perhaps too many nursing departments and schools lack a broader perspective on science and success? (Thompson, 2009; Thompson & Watson, 2001; Watson & Thompson, 2010). Big fish syndrome with attendant success narratives (Clark & Sousa, 2018) can dominate via supposedly successful researchers who can garner high levels of name recognition within nursing but scant regard outside. These are tough messages. To recognize that success depends on the talents and skills of aspiring and experienced researchers and those who support them requires an honest, critical, objective, and impartial look at the current status of nursing research and knowledge exchange. This will include an examination of issues such as research culture, environment, strategy, coordination, communication, capacity and capability, training, quality, and performance. Only by undertaking such a frank assessment can we then attempt to build a thriving and sustainable research culture that fosters new ideas, innovation and creativity, engenders communication, collaboration and coordination, inspires, engages, and enriches researchers and others and contributes to a culture in which excellence in research can flourish and true success drive our efforts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.