Setting the tone: perspectives on the role of the team in promoting a healthy and inclusive research environment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to answer the following research questions: What factors contribute to faculty, postdocs, research staff and graduate students feeling part of a healthy and inclusive team environment? Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted student, postdoctoral fellow, staff and faculty focus groups to solicit perceptions on the characteristics of healthy and inclusive research teams, and how research team members can contribute to shaping this environment. Focus groups were semistructured and guided by an appreciative inquiry approach. Thematic analysis was used to summarize and categorize findings across focus groups and to understand how these themes contributed to the overall research questions. Findings The authors conducted 11 focus groups that were comprised of 48 different individuals: 30 graduate students (6 focus groups), 6 faculty members (2 focus groups), 6 staff members (2 focus groups) and 6 postdoctoral fellows (1 focus group). Themes that were discussed included collaboration and clarity on role definition; effective communication; cultivating safe relationships; promoting and modeling work–life balance; and supporting professional development in these areas. Originality/value This study reinforces the role that research teams can have on how graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, staff and faculty experience the research environment. The authors also identified a number of themes and factors that can be used to develop training initiatives to facilitate healthy research team environments.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it