Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The research agenda setting of higher education researchers

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research agenda setting is a critical dimension in the creation of knowledge since it represents the starting point of a process that embeds individual researchers’ (and the communities that they identify themselves with) interest for shedding light on topical unknowns, intrinsic and extrinsic factors underpinning that motivation, and the ambition and scope of what a research endeavor can bring. This article aims to better understand the setting of individual research agendas in the field of higher education. It does so by means of a recently developed framework on research agenda setting that uses cluster analysis and linear modeling. The findings identify two main clusters defining individual research agenda setting—cohesive and trailblazing—each with a different set of determining characteristics. Further analysis by cross-validation through means of sub-sampling shows that these clusters are consistent for both new and established researchers, and for frequent and “part-time” contributors to the field of higher education. Implications for the field of higher education research are discussed, including the relevance that each research agendas cluster has for the advancement of knowledge in the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The definition provided by Ertmer and Glazewski (2014) is a notable exception, albeit only an initial effort; this definition will be shown in the next section of the article.

  2. The script of the Boolean search on Scopus was the following: “(SRCTITLE (“higher education”) OR SRCTITLE (“tertiary education”)) AND DOCTYPE (ar) AND PUBYEAR >2003 AND PUBYEAR <2015” —the search reported 40 higher education-related journals, but 2 were excluded, the Chronicle of Higher Education due to characteristics that set its articles apart from other journals (see Horta 2017) and the journal Art Design Communication In Higher Education, which only published two articles during the reference period.

  3. For analytical purposes, standardized factor scores were calculated for the latent factors representing the dimensions under analysis (DiStefano et al. 2009) using full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation for purposes of data imputation (Enders and Bandalos 2001). However, when descriptive statistics are reported, the simple mean for individual items comprising that factor is used instead, making it easier to read since these values are easier to be interpreted than Z-scores.

  4. with the possible exception of France, but the very small number of observations for that country do not permit even a tentative conclusion.

References

  • Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 596–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, J. A. S., Pais, A. A. C. C., & Formosinho, S. J. (2009). Science indicators and science patterns in Europe. Journal of Informetrics, 3(2), 134–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altbach, P. G., Bozeman, L. A., Janashia, N., & Rumbley, L. E. (Eds.). (2006). Higher education: a worldwide inventory of centers and programs. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerlind, G.S. (2008). An academic perspective on research and being a researcher: an integration of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashwin, P., Deem, R., & McAlpine, L. (2016). Newer researchers in higher education: policy actors or policy subjects? Studies in Higher Education, 41(12), 2184–2197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baccini, A., Barabesi, L., Cioni, M., & Pisani, C. (2014). Crossing the hurdle: the determinants of individual scientific performance. Scientometrics, 101(3), 2035–2062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazeley, P. (2003). Defining’early career’in research. Higher Education, 45(3), 257–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2017). Activity theory in empirical higher education research: choices, uses and values. Tertiary Education and Management, online first, pp. 1-28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1969). Intellectual field and creative project. Social Science Information, 8(2), 89–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1999). The specificity of the scientific field. In The Science Studies Reader, & M. Biagioli (Ed), (pp. 31–50). New York: Routledge.

  • Brew, A., & Lucas, L. (Eds.). (2009). Academic research and researchers. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brew, A., Boud, D., Namgung, S. U., Lucas, L., & Crawford, K. (2016). Research productivity and academics’ conceptions of research. Higher Education, 71(5), 681–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, B., & Taylor, B. J. (2015). Rise of science and engineering postgraduate and the restructuring of academic research. Journal of Higher Education, 86(5), 667–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N., & Thi, T. U. N. (2005). Why do academic scientists engage in interdisciplinary research? Research Evaluation, 14(1), 70–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Hu, L. (2012). Higher education research as a field in China: its formation and current landscape. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(5), 655–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, T., Fang, D., Chen, J., Wang, Y., & Jeris, C. (2001). A robust and scalable clustering algorithm for mixed type attributes in large database environment (pp. 263–268). Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM.

  • Chou, K.-L. (2008). The prevalence and clustering of four major lifestyle risk factors in Hong Kong Chinese older adults. Journal of Aging and Health, 20(7), 788–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S. (2012). Conceptualising higher education research and/or academic development as ‘fields’: a critical analysis. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(5), 667–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conceição, P., & Heitor, M. V. (1999). On the role of the university in the knowledge economy. Science and Public Policy, 26(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., & Mindrila, D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores: considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(20), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobele, A. R., & Rundle-Theile, S. (2015). Progression through academic ranks: a longitudinal examination of internal promotion drivers. Higher Education Quarterly, 69(4), 410–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2014). Developing a research agenda: contributing new knowledge via intent and focus. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 54–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge and discourse on language. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fyfe, A. (2015). Uncomfortable departments: British historians of science and the importance of disciplinary communities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(2), 194–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajdarpasic, A., Brew, A., & Popenici, S. (2015). The contribution of academics’ engagement in research to undergraduate education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(4), 644–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harland, T. (2012). Higher education as an open-access discipline. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(5), 703–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2003). Discipline-based educational development. In H. Eggins & R. MacDonald (Eds.), The scholarship of academic development (pp. 47–57). Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, M. (2015). Multiversities and academic identities: change, continuities, and complexities. In L. Leisyte & U. Wilkesmann (Eds.), Organizing academic work in higher education teaching, learning and identities (pp. 205–222). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horta, H. (2017). Higher-education researchers in Asia: the risks of insufficient contribution to international higher-education research. In J. Jung, H. Horta, & A. Yonezawa (Eds.), Researching higher education in Asia: history, development and future (pp. 15–36). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horta, H., & Jung, J. (2014). Higher education research in Asia: an archipelago, two continents or merely atomization? Higher Education, 68(1), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horta, H., & Santos, J. M. (2016). An instrument to measure individuals’ research agenda setting: the multi-dimensional research agendas inventory. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1243–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ion, G., & Ceacero, D. C. (2017). Transitions in the manifestations of the research culture of Spanish universities. Higher Education Research and Development, 36(2), 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, X., Borg, E., & Borg, M. (2017). Challenges and coping strategies for international publication: perceptions of young scholars in China. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 428–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (2009). Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis (Vol. 344). John Wiley & Sons.

  • Kehm, B. M. (2015). Higher education as a field of study and research in Europe. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 60–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K., & Kim, J.-K. (2017). Inequality in the scientific community: the effects of cumulative advantage among social scientists and humanities in Korea. Higher Education, 73(1), 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Horta, H., & Jung, J. (2017). Higher education research in Hong Kong, Japan, China and Malaysia: exploring research community cohesion and the integration of thematic approaches. Studies in Higher Education, 42(1), 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila, T. (2013). Science in a new mode: good old (theoretical) science versus brave new (commodified) knowledge production? Science and Education, 22(10), 2443–2461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, M. (2005). Modes of knowledge and patterns of power. Higher Education, 49(1–2), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzhabekova, A., Hendel, D. D., & Chapman, D. W. (2015). Mapping global research on international higher education. Research in Higher Education, 56(8), 861–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwiek, M. (2015). Academic generations and academic work: patterns of attitudes, behaviors, and research productivity of Polish academics after 1989. Studies in Higher Education, 40(8), 1354–1376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwiek, M. (2016). The European research elite: a cross-national study of highly productive academics in 11 countries. Higher Education, 71(3), 379–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwiek, M., & Antonowicz, D. (2015). The changing paths in academic careers in European universities: minor steps and major milestones. In T. Fumasoli, G. Goastellec, & B. Kehm (Eds.), Academic work and careers in Europe: trends, challenges, perspectives (pp. 41–68). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (2013). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lauto, G., & Sengoku, S. (2015). Perceived incentives to transdisciplinarity in a Japanese university research center. Futures, 65, 136–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahey, E. (2016). From sole investigator to team scientist: trends in the practice and study of research collaboration. Annual Review of Sociology, 42, 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. (2000). The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25, 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leisyte, L. (2016). New public management and research productivity—a precarious state of affairs of academic work in the Netherlands. Studies in Higher Education, 41(5), 828–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leisyte, L., Enders, J., & de Boer, H. (2008). The freedom to set research agendas—illusion and reality of research units in the Dutch universities. Higher Education Policy, 21(3), 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, P., & Norman, D. A. (1977). Human information processing: an introduction to psychology. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, W. Y. W., & Tang, H.-H. H. (2017). Dancing with global trends: higher education policy and university governance in Hong Kong, 1997-2012. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 49(1), 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, B. (2012). The higher education research archipelago. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(1), 129–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martimianakis, M. A., & Muzzin, L. (2015). Discourses of interdisciplinarity and the shifting topography of academic work: generational perspectives on facilitating and resisting neoliberalism. Studies in Higher Education, 40(8), 1454–1470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. D. (2008). Measuring personality constructs: the advantages and disadvantages of self-reports, informant reports and behavioural assessments. Enquire, 1(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messer-Davidow, E., Shumway, D., & Sylvan, D. (1993). Knowledges: historical and critical studies in disciplinarity. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Middlehurst, R. (2014). Higher education research agendas for the coming decade: a UK perspective on the policy–research nexus. Studies in Higher Education, 39(8), 1475–1487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mok, K. H. (2016). Massifying and internationalizing higher education, changing labor markets and social mobility: challenges for education and urban governance. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(3), 233–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, G., & Kubacki, K. (2007). Researchers in higher education: a neglected focus of study? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), 297–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norusis, M. J. (2012). IBM SPSS statistics 19 statistical procedures companion. Prentice Hall.

  • Parker, J. N., Allesina, S., & Lortie, C. J. (2013). Characterizing a scientific elite (B): publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics, 94(2), 469–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. L., & Clancy, K. J. (1972). Some effects of “social desirability” in survey studies. American Journal of Sociology, 77(5), 921–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickens, J. (2005). Attitudes and perceptions. In N. Borkowski (Ed.), Organizational behavior in health care. Jones and Bartlett: Sudbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platow, M. J. (2012). PhD experience and subsequent outcomes: a look at self-perceptions of acquired graduate attributes and supervisor support. Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (2015). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Quimbo, M. A. T., & Sulabo, E. C. (2014). Research productivity and its policy implications in higher education institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1955–1971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rzhetsky, A., Foster, J. G., Foster, I. T., & Evans, J. A. (2015). Choosing experiments to accelerate collective discovery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(47), 14569–14574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, J. M., & Horta, H. (2015). The generational gap of science: a dynamic cluster analysis of doctorates in an evolving scientific system. Scientometrics, 104(1), 381–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schut, M., van Paassen, A., Leeuwis, C., & Klerkx, L. (2014). Towards dynamic research configurations: a framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. Science and Public Policy, 41(2), 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shattock, M. (2014). Can we still speak of there being an academic profession? History of Education, 43(6), 727–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spalter-Roth, R. (2007). Sociologists in research, applied, and policy settings bringing professionals in from the cold. Journal of Applied Social Science, 1(2), 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stubb, J., Pyhalto, K., & Lonka, K. (2014). Conceptions of research: the doctoral student experience in three domains. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 251–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavares, O., & Cardoso, S. (2013). Enrolment choices in Portuguese higher education: do students behave as rational consumers? Higher Education, 66(3), 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, W. G. (2014). Higher education research, policy, and the challenges of reform. Studies in Higher Education, 39(8), 1417–1427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tight, M. (2004). Research into higher education: an a-theoretical community of practice. Higher Education & Development, 23(4), 395–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tight, M. (2008). Higher education research as tribe, territory and/or community: a co-citation analysis. Higher Education, 55(5), 593–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tight, M. (2012). Higher education research 2000-2010: changing journal publication patterns. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(5), 723–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tight, M. (2013). Discipline and methodology in higher education research. Higher Education Research and Development, 32(1), 136–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tight, M. (2014). Working in separate silos? What citation patterns reveal about higher education research internationally. Higher Education, 68(3), 379–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Weijden, I., Teelken, C., de Boer, M., & Drost, M. (2016). Career satisfaction of postdoctoral researchers in relation to their expectations for the future. Higher Education, 72(1), 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. (2016). Knowledge creation in collaboration networks: effects of tie configuration. Research Policy, 45(1), 68–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, T., Ramakrishnan, R., and Livny, M. (1996). BIRCH: an efficient data clustering method for very large databases (Vol. 25, pp. 103–114). Presented at the ACM SIGMOD Record, ACM.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Social, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Lisboa, Portugal

    João M. Santos

  2. Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    João M. Santos

  3. Division of Policy, Administration and Social Sciences Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, SAR, China

    Hugo Horta

Authors
  1. João M. Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hugo Horta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hugo Horta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Santos, J.M., Horta, H. The research agenda setting of higher education researchers. High Educ 76, 649–668 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0230-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0230-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation