Examining the Origins and Outcomes of Research-Related Emotions in Faculty: Developing the Research Emotions Questionnaire (REQ)
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
University faculty experience many emotions that have implications for their research success; however, previous studies on research-related emotions in faculty have consistently employed self-report measures with limited validity, reliability, and scope. The current study aimed to validate the Research Emotions Questionnaire (REQ) among STEM faculty, examine potential differences in emotions by demographic and job-related factors, and test a hypothesized model of emotions as predictors of faculty research success based on Pekrun’s control-value theory (CVT). An online survey was completed by 611 STEM faculty from 10 research-intensive US universities, with the data showing the REQ to be valid and reliable. Women reported more anxiety and disappointment, underrepresented minorities reported more anxiety, and full professors reported more enjoyment and pride, as well as less anxiety and disappointment, compared to junior colleagues. Structural equation modeling results showed perceived control and value appraisals significantly predicted research emotions and, in turn, self-reported research success. Negative binomial regressions revealed enjoyment, boredom, disappointment, and frustration as significant predictors of bibliometric counts of publications and citations. The REQ is an improved tool for understanding faculty research emotions, with implications for developing targeted emotional regulation programs to enhance faculty well-being, success, and job satisfaction, particularly for underrepresented groups.
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 | 0.031 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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