Servant Research is a new framework that offers a large umbrella term to describe a philosophical approach to research that can exist across many different research methodologies, settings, or disciplines and addresses a multitude of different individual or societal problems, inequities, or needs. Those who engage in Servant Research use their research to serve others by understanding individuals and communities and designing, implementing, and disseminating research that will create meaningful change that will ultimately improve the lives of the people being researched. They make an intentional choice to use their research for the betterment of others, at the individual, community, or societal level.

The creation of a new term, Servant Research, gives a label and a positioning that is broader than existing research terminology, models, or paradigms can capture. The introduction of this new framework provides unique language to describe this important work. There is currently no label that is both inclusive enough to describe research that encompasses a variety of methodologies and topics and yet specific enough to limit inclusion to research that seeks to create meaningful change for people and communities. As such, Servant Research offers a philosophical and organizational framework that helps overcome the limitations and restrictions of existing models or approaches.

Servant Research aligns with many of the core values that are foundational to the Academy. These values extend beyond the traditional core missions of teaching and research into what has been termed the ‘third mission’ of the university: social and economic responsibility that makes contributions to people, communities, and society (Compagnuccia & Spigarellib, 2020). A content analysis of 227 university mission statements from the top ranked universities in Asia, Africa, Europa, Latin America, and North America found that the theme of ‘serving community’ was one of the most prevalent concepts in mission statements of universities across all five geographical areas, suggesting that institutions of higher education worldwide recognize that they have a responsibility to those outside the Academy (Bayrak, 2020).

The university’s social responsibility mission has been described as providing service to society, engaging external stakeholders, and demonstrating evidence of social impact by addressing social disparities, helping to create a sustainable future, and acting as an agent of social change (Godonoga & Sporn, 2023). This may hold particular significance for land grant institutions, which were initially created to foster a public-service mission and to emphasize university/community collaboration. By engaging in social responsibility, universities help change the image of higher education institutions from ivory towers to institutions that are “increasingly diverse, plural, and in horizontal and bidirectional communication with their communities, local and global” (Amorim et al., 2023, p. 45).

The university social responsibility mission is closely aligned to humanistic principles, a concept that forefronts the importance of people in all decision-making (Gaet, 2023). Humanistic principles guide the social responsibility mission and ensure that all service to society upholds the values of dignity and respect for all people (Matheson et al., 2021). In other words, the social responsibility mission provides an impetus to engage with the community and humanistic principles ensure that the engagement is done in a way that helps people thrive.

Although the specific activities that universities engage in to demonstrate their social responsibility vary, there is broad consensus of the importance of this work. As an example, the ISO 26,000 Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility, which serves as the framework for many organizations and institutions, including universities, was developed by 450 experts from 99 different countries and 40 international organizations. These standards offer “more than 400 recommendations to any company or organization that wants to improve its contribution to sustainable environmental, social, and economic development” (available at: https://iso26000.info). The standards emphasize the two fundamental practices of social engagement: (1) recognizing responsibility and (2) identifying and engaging stakeholders in this work. As of this writing, only four countries (Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cuba, & Israel) have not adopted these standards.

Scholars have attempted to measure how universities have responded to this call for engagement in social responsibility. A comprehensive review of the higher education literature from 2000 to 2015 found an overall increase in published articles that specifically address how universities are integrating social responsibility principles into their mainstream functions and operating procedures (Larrán & Peña, 2017). Available research supports the finding that universities consider their social responsibility initiatives as essential tools to help enhance university performance (Huang & Do, 2021).

At the individual level, scholars from disciplines across the Academy also have responded to this call for university engagement in social responsibility in a multitude of ways. Nearly every academic discipline has researchers engaged in work that is grounded in social responsibility and humanistic principles. Examples abound, and include faculty in textile and apparel disciplines who research just labor practices, fair trade, and the effects of fashion on body image (Dickson & Eckman, 2006), urban planners who study the effects of green spaces on social cohesion and mental health of residents (Jennings & Bamkole, 2019), and scholars from public health who develop and implement strategies to improve the health of disadvantaged populations (O’Mara-Eves et al., 2015). In short, situating a research paradigm in the values of social responsibility and humanistic principles is not an entirely new pathway. What is new, however, is creating a comprehensive and inclusive organizational and philosophical framework that starts to define and describe this work as it exists across disciplines, methodologies, and societal issues.

The term Servant Research does not yet exist. Therefore, it is important to create a starting place for this organizational and philosophical framework that includes a visual model and definition, with the understanding that these will undoubtedly change and grow over time (See Fig 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Philosophical framework for servant research

Full size image

Core Components of Servant Research

In the following sections, the components of the proposed philosophical framework for Servant Research are discussed in greater detail. The framework begins at the bottom, where it is grounded in social responsibility and humanistic principles that serve as the foundation for this work. Next, the model is supported by four pillars that represent the defining characteristics of Servant Research and serve as both the motivation to engage in this research and the focus of the research itself. The four pillars are: empathy (understanding people), altruism (giving back), empowerment (commitment to the growth of others), and service (engaging with others). Two of these pillars (empathy and altruism) are grounded in more than three decades of research that attempts to understand the motivations that individuals, groups, and entire organizations have for engaging in a prosocial behavior, where the evidence provides strong support for these two concepts (Batson et al., 2015). The remaining two pillars (empowerment, service) are based on reviews of the social responsibility mission in higher education, where these concepts are consistent themes (Huang & Do, 2020). The four pillars also align with another type of endeavor that often exists within universities (Ross et al., 2020) and is specifically and intentionally designed and enacted to uplift the other. Servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1973) is a value-drive leadership style that turns leadership from a focus on the leader to a focus on those being served. Scholars from academic disciplines as diverse as Information Technology (Sheng & Saide, 2024), Medicine (Gorsky et al., 2018), Arts Education (Hafeli, 2014), Environmental Sciences (Asfahani, 2023), Sport Psychology (Wang et al., 2021) and Education (Jeyaraj & Gandolfi, 2022), just to name a few, have studied and embraced servant leadership as an approach that enhances the lives of faculty, staff, and students. Servant leadership aligns with the implicit desire of many administrators, faculty and staff within higher education to support and serve their students and colleagues (Tropello & DeFaxio, 2014). Similar to servant leadership, Servant Research turns the focus of the research to the individual or group being studied. From this perspective, the four pillars of Servant Research also align with the research on Servant Leadership, where these four concepts consistently emerge across multiple definitions and models (Focht & Ponton, 2015).

Importantly, Servant Research must be permeated with the stance of research humility, which is visually represented in the model as a strip that wraps around the other components, enveloping them in this important disposition. The pillars lead to an upper tier, where the research is conducted. This section is called methodological approaches to underscore that there is no single – or even preferred – methodology that is used in Servant Research. This moves Servant Research from describing a type of research methodology into a broad organizational framework that describes a philosophical approach to research. Finally, the top of the model represents the outcome of the research: meaningful change for people and communities.

Grounded in Essential Principles

Servant Research is grounded in social responsibility and humanistic principles. These concepts both support the model and serve as the core motivation for those who undertake this work. Those who engage in Servant Research do so with the understanding that their work is outward facing and designed to have a significant and positive impact on people and communities. They understand that research should align with these values and be motivated by the desire to help.

Social responsibility applies as a core, foundational stance for scholars who wish to engage in Servant Research. In general, these scholars believe that knowledge, capabilities, and resources should be created and applied primarily for the benefit of others, particularly those outside the Academy (Compagnucci & Spirarelli, 2020). Using this lens, research is primarily intended to contribute to the social, cultural, and economic development of people and communities.

Some scholars may interpret this sense of social responsibility using the lens of social justice, as their research seeks to address inequities, promote social change, and “show that another world is possible” (Freudenberg & Israel, 2023, p. 301). They may hold a deep sense of dissatisfaction with the injustices they see in current practices, policies, and social realities or with the pain and suffering that they witness when others face devastation, loss, or trauma. In some disciplines this may be framed as environmental or eco-justice, which is broadly defined as the drive to address environmental injustices that are disproportionately felt by poor and marginalized communities (Menton et al., 2020). These scholars understand that their research will help people and communities gain equity and access and overcome unjust conditions, significant distress, discrimination, and despair.

Broad humanistic principles also provide the foundation for Servant Research. These principles lay out core understandings about the world and the people in it and include the belief that people are inherently good, that there should be efforts to move people toward equality and self-actualization, and that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity (Rogers, 1961). This grounding goes beyond the basic ethical requirements that all researchers have to minimize risk to participants and optimize potential benefits (Bell & Lewis, 2023). Rather, grounded in humanistic principles, Servant Research is more aspirational and recognizes the imperative to engage in research that benefits society, cares for those who are being researched, enhances human rights, respects diversity, and results in a better life for individuals and communities. Ultimately, those who engage in Servant Research hold an abiding sense of optimism and hope about what the future could hold and a belief that change is possible.

Grounding research in social responsibility and humanistic principles leads to the creation of research that has the potential to dramatically change the lives of individuals and the systems, organizations and communities within which they live (Gustafsson et al., 2015; Keränen & Olkkonen, 2022). Importantly, the actual research conducted from this new philosophical framework can be about nearly any topic. The defining features of the Servant Research framework are more about intent and purpose than about process or product. Servant Research provides a language and a positioning for research that is infused with social responsibility and humanistic principles but may not be specifically or overtly related to any specific content. In short, Servant Research frames the positioning, but not the topic, of the research.

Supported by Defining Characteristics

The framework of Servant Research, grounded in social responsibility and humanistic principles, is supported by four main pillars that represent the research stance and motivations of those who engage in this type of work as well as the defining characteristics of the work itself. They are empathy, altruism, empowerment, and service.

Empathy (Understanding People)

At the heart of Servant Research is a deep and abiding empathy and a desire to truly understand other people, their communities, and their lives. Empathy is a complex capability that involves cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and moral capacities that together are used to understand and/or feel the emotional states of others, and typically results in some type of compassionate behavior (Riess, 2017). In this case, the resulting compassionate behavior is research that matters to others and results in meaningful change. Without empathy, researchers can engage in research about individuals or communities without fully understanding their needs. The result can be the creation of rubrics, interventions, or policies that are at best incomplete or misguided or are at worst, harmful, or oppressive. Without empathy, there is great potential for research harm.

From this perspective, those operating from a Servant Research perspective use the foundational principles to actively recognize they have an obligation to select research that will benefit others and impact people and communities in need (social responsibility) and help individuals in those communities move toward higher levels of functioning and a better life (humanistic principles). The pillar of empathy reminds researchers of the importance of better understanding the people and communities they wish to serve to make sure that their research has the highest potential to help.

Altruism (Giving Back)

In research, the term altruism is most often associated with research participants, not researchers. Multiple efforts have been made to better understand the role that altruism plays in people’s willingness to participate in research (Detoc et al., 2019; Dotolo et al., 2017; Machado & Silva, 2016). What has been less studied and discussed is how altruism might be a motivating factor for researchers themselves.

In general, research can be characterized as having one of three main motivating factors: (1) curiosity-driven or ‘blue-sky’ research, which is focused on advancing fundamentals or unanswered central questions in the field; (2) resource-driven, where stakeholders or researchers fund or conduct research based on their own priorities; and (3) altruism-driven, which has a goal of providing the highest possible benefit and potential impact to people (Garrett et al., 2020). These categories are not entirely mutually exclusive but can offer a broad distinction, based on the primary motivating factor. In the case of altruism-driven research, the primary goal is the desire to maximize the benefits to others, with any benefits to the researcher understood as a secondary consequence and not the main purpose of the research. Servant Research aligns with this altruism-driven approach. It is focused, intentional, and overtly guided by the core principle of altruism. Giving back is the reason for the work.

Empowerment (Commitment to the Growth of Others)

Research is never inherently neutral. In general, research either challenges the status quo and facilitates change or it perpetuates existing programs and systems that are often filled with structural injustices (O’Hara et al., 2021). Research can be a form of advocacy or call to action that disrupts unfair systems or policies or gives participants or communities the information and data they need to create or enhance programming or foster significant change.

Likewise, researchers are never inherently neutral. All researchers, as a function of their role, have power and privilege. Servant Research serves as a reminder to researchers that efforts to ignore culture, diversity, power, privilege, and oppression when designing and implementing research does not mean that the resulting research is free from bias. Rather, ignoring these realities means the researcher may be creating unintended harm to the people or communities being researched.

As part of their commitment to social responsibility, many scholars recognize that their power and privilege means that they have an obligation to advocate for those who are most vulnerable (Russo-Tait, 2022). Advocacy (being a voice for) and empowerment (giving voice to) are concepts deeply embedded in the work of many faculty (Green et al., 2021) Those who employ a Servant Research perspective recognize their responsibility to use their research for advocacy and empowerment. Whenever possible, Servant Research promotes empowerment over advocacy alone. The idea of empowering people and communities who are participating in research is important, as without this collective empowerment, those who engage in Servant Research may unintentionally move into the role of savior (Ekpe & Toutant, 2022), falsely believing that they alone are responsible for saving or ‘fixing’ the lives of the participants in their research. Framing this pillar as empowerment ensures that Servant Research will be focused on the personal growth of others.

Service (Engaging with Others)

A hallmark of Servant Research is the desire to serve for the benefit of others. When service is enacted through research, such in Servant Research, the primary goal of the research is better to understand, and ultimately improve, the lives of those involved in the research, either directly as participants, or indirectly, due to a shared need, identity, or concern. That means that rather than deciding on a research study or research agenda based solely on a researcher-derived interest, priority, or passion (what Garrett et al., 2020 would call either curiosity or resource-driven research), the decision for research comes from a pressing need from the community (altruism-driven research).

As a result, scholars who engage in Servant Research may find themselves studying problems or populations that they never intended to study. Nevertheless, when they are faced with communities in distress after a disaster or war, families living in poverty, environmental or ecological threats to the planet, medical emergencies such as the worldwide pandemic, or other challenges that have no clear research-informed pathway forward, they find themselves drawn into research that will help provide answers and alternatives to these pressing problems. It only takes a brief look at the research trajectories of many prominent scholars in varied disciplines to see examples of personal research agendas that have changed or adapted due to presses from the environment.

Permeated with Research Humility

Research humility is a new term that is introduced within this Servant Research model. The term was created to help those who engage in Servant Research keep the needs of research participants at the forefront of their awareness. This orientation is grounded in self-reflexivity, appreciation for the expertise of the other, openness to sharing power, and a willingness to continue to learn from those who have traditionally not held positions of power (Lekas et al., 2020). The term parallels the concept of cultural humility, which has been conceptualized as a way of being and an ongoing internalized commitment, rather than a specific behavior (Foronda, 2020). When this mindset is applied to research, research humility recognizes that research participants are the experts on their own lived experiences, that research is the co-creation of knowledge between the researcher and those being researched, and that the researcher does not have the ‘answers’ that will be created on behalf of the research participants.

Research humility is more focused than cultural humility, which focuses on self-awareness and understanding of power imbalances in all interactions (Foronda, 2020). It is also more specifically and intentionally focused than another term currently in use, intellectual humility, which reminds all scholars to recognize their own shortcomings, limitations, or blind spots in their scholarly thinking (Naumova, 2023). Research humility applies specifically to research, and it is a core condition of all Servant Research, regardless of the identities of the researcher or participant population. Research humility recognizes the importance of listening to and learning from others.

The term research humility also aligns with a fundamental philosophical stance of the model. The entire model is framed as Servant Research, not servant researcher. It is the research, not the researcher, that is the agent of social change and the vehicle for advocacy and empowerment. Within the philosophical framework, research humility is understood as something that permeates and informs each stage of the research process. Social responsibility and humanistic principles cannot be fully actualized if the researcher does not engage from a place of research humility, and the characteristics of empathy, altruism, empowerment, and service are all infused with research humility.

Enacted through Diverse Methodological Approaches

Servant Research is not confined to any particular methodology. It is a broad philosophical framework that provides a conceptual lens to guide research that uses many different methodologies. As a result, there are many methodological and theoretical approaches that align with Servant Research, and a wide range of researchers will undoubtedly find that their chosen methodology can fit neatly within the Servant Research framework.

For example, scholars who engage in participatory action research (PAR) or community engaged research (CEnR), center the work that they do within this broader lens, and there are many areas where these specific methodologies overlap with Servant Research. Researchers who use PAR typically work from a social justice perspective, seek to understand the needs of their communities, and co-own the research design and outcomes (Edirmanasinghe et al., 2022). Likewise, CEnR is grounded in the principle of understanding the unique needs of a community and having scholars work in tandem with members of the community to create research that has value for the community (London et al., 2020). Constructivist and critical inquiry approaches recognize the importance of creating shared understandings (Levitt, 2021), citizen science approaches are, by design, collaborative endeavors between scholars and citizens who share knowledge and power (Haklay et al., 2021), and feminist scholars use their work to disrupt power (Mohajan, 2022).

Scholars who use a lens of Critical Race Feminist scholarship (Daftary, 2020) those who work from the perspective of Disability Critical Race Theory (DisCrit) (Annamma et al., 2018), and scholars who come from an eco-justice approach (Menton et al., 2020) have been engaging in work designed to empower others, a core pillar of Servant Research, for decades.

There are emerging methodologies that are firmly anchored in understanding the participants’ lived experiences, values, and perspectives in order to help facilitate social changes. For example, digital ethnography (Paoli & D’Auria, 2021), social network analysis (Tabassum et al., 2018), and sentiment analysis (Wankhade et al., 2022) are yet further examples of research approaches that firmly place the expertise in the hands of those who are participating in the research. All of these approaches align with the Research Humility stance of Servant Research.

Servant Research could be considered a type of applied research, where the goal is to solve practical problems that require real-world solutions. However, not all applied research is consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of Servant Research. For example, research that seeks to understand the best marketing strategies for a new consumer product is applied research but would not be considered Servant Research.

In other words, there are a multitude of research methodologies that align with components of the Servant Research framework. However, none of these existing models is broad enough to capture the entirety of the Servant Research framework nor specific enough to capture only research that aligns with the core philosophical tenets. For example, Servant Research allows for, but does not require, researchers to be out in the community or directly interacting with participants, which is a necessary methodology in PAR or CEnR. Servant Research allows for, but does not require, researchers to engage in qualitative methodologies, yet feminist scholars and those using constructivist approaches have historically and overwhelmingly embraced qualitative approaches (Mohajan, 2022). Within the Servant Research framework is room for any scholar who conducts any type of qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method approach, whether in the field or in the laboratory, whether through immersive experiences, interviews, surveys, or experimental designs, and whether the designs are fundamental, applied, or action research.

In addition to limiting the methodologies used, some existing approaches limit the content of research in ways that Servant Research does not. For examples, Servant Research allows for, but does not require, researchers to focus on studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power, as does Critical Race Theory, the intersection of dis/ability status with power, as in DisCrit, or the equitable distribution of environmental risks, as does eco-justice. Rather, Servant Research encompasses a broad range of potential content. For example, there are scholars who conduct meaningful research that creates systemic understanding that ultimately affects policy change. Other scholars raise professional consciousness about important topics or investigate strategies to help communities harmed by natural disasters, violence, or climate changes. Ultimately, any scholar who conducts any type of quantitative, qualitative, or mixed method research of any type might find that their research has significant and meaningful implications for people and communities, is grounded in social responsibility and humanistic principles, is supported by the four defining characteristics of empathy, altruism, empowerment, and service, is permeated with research humility, and clearly aligns with the Servant Research approach.

Because the motivations for this type of research are internalized, it can be difficult to determine whether another scholar’s work meets criteria for Servant Research. It is precisely for this reason that there are no specific examples of Servant Research listed anywhere in this manuscript. It is not for others to determine the motivations of another’s scholarly work and decide what scholarship receives this label. Therefore, regardless of methodology employed, researchers who question whether their own research might meet the standards of Servant Research could ask themselves:

  1. 1.

    Is my research intentionally designed to provide assistance to individuals, systems, or communities in need and is it grounded in a fundamental desire to help others grow and thrive?

  2. 2.

    Is my research supported and enacted by principles of understanding and engaging with others, giving back, and a commitment to the growth of the people being researched?

  3. 3.

    Is service to others the primary motivation of my research?

  4. 4.

    Is the research, and am I, grounded in research humility, always open to learning from the people and communities I am intending to serve?

Engaging in Servant Research in the Academy

Servant Research can provide a framework for scholars within multiple contexts. The philosophical framework provides structure to understand and articulate the value of this work, both to others and to the self.

Servant Research as an Empirical Framework to Address Individual and Societal Problems

When scholars engage in Servant Research, they select and implement a research agenda with the needs of the other at the forefront of all decision-making. In a world where there is uncertainty about the role that research and data should play in policy and governance (Cairney & Oliver, 2017), Servant Research can provide the theoretical rationale for research that moves beyond identifying and verifying social problems into informing and effecting policy or other types of transformative initiatives. The data and information collected become the backbone of the argument for change. As the legendary engineer W. Edwards Deming stated, “without data, you’re just another person with an opinion” (Kolasa et al., 2020, p. 147). Alternatively, with data, researchers can advocate for and empower others, using evidence to support their statements.

Servant Research as an Academic Framework for Faculty Life

Universities typically require faculty to engage in three overarching components of faculty life: teaching, research, and service. The specific obligations and requirements within each of these three roles vary by institution and individual faculty member. Traditionally, these three roles have been seen as distinct, and measurement systems of faculty effort have assigned percentage values to each of these categories based on the premise that they represent unique effort (Carter & Carter, 1989). Many scholars have noted that service is nearly always valued less highly by institutions than the other two roles (Guarino & Borden, 2017).

This artificial split sends the message that faculty must choose among these roles and that their efforts are applicable only to one category. The result is an implicit (or even explicit) assumption that service does not hold as much value as teaching or research. This holds true even at land-grant institutions, where direct service to the community has traditionally been understood to be part of the educational mission (Altbach, 2016). In addition, there are often unequal distributions of service, with women and faculty of color often taking on higher service commitments (Guarino & Borden, 2017). This means that for faculty who engage in high levels of service, traditional models that place higher rewards on teaching and research result in lower compensation or other rewards for faculty from traditionally underrepresented groups.

Because Servant Research does not make these arbitrary divisions between research and service, scholars who engage in this type of work recognize that they are fulfilling important obligations in both service and research through the same activities. In the true spirit of Servant Research, service is the primary motivation, but in the reality of practice, research is also an outcome.

Servant Research as a Recruitment Framework for Doctoral Students and New Researchers

Doctoral students in some academic disciplines enter the university with a strong commitment and interest in research and the ability to easily connect their research to their personal values and interests (McKenna, 2021). Doctoral students in other disciplines, however, can struggle to define themselves as researchers, particularly if they cannot see the link between research and meaningful change. Within some professions, the disconnect between conducting traditional research and improving society can make it difficult for doctoral students to find meaning in engaging in research (Gardner & Mendoza, 2023).

Servant Research can serve as a bridge for doctoral students who are more reluctant to engage in research as they learn to design and implement research that will specifically and intentionally serve others by providing meaningful data and information that can facilitate social change. At its heart, Servant Research is social activism operationalized. This philosophy may help doctoral students, as well as new researchers, better envision themselves in the researcher role, enhancing their researcher identity. For some, framing research as a strategy to serve, uplift, and empower others while changing unequal and unjust power structures can fundamentally alter the motivation to engage in research.

Servant Research as a Meaning-Making Framework

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Servant Research allows scholars who engage in research to find meaning and purpose in the work that they do. The multiple definitions used to describe meaningfulness share a common understanding that for people to find meaning in their work, they must be able to understand the value of their contributions (Steger, 2012) and engage in work that is both intrinsically important and is believed to be “worth” performing (Martela & Pessi, 2018). For many in academia, contributing in meaningful ways to others (through teaching, research, and service) is a meaning-making framework and a primary motivating factor for entering, and persisting, in their careers. One national survey of university faculty across multiple institutions found that serving others, helping, and having purpose were the job factors that had the highest correlations with meaning in life. The same study found that serving others was consistently identified as the “best part of academic life” (Hagedorn, 2012, p. 504). Research has found an inverse relationship between the belief that one is engaging in meaningful work and levels of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and burnout (Suarez, 2018). In this way, engaging in Servant Research may fulfill both professional values as well as personal motivations of the researchers who conduct this type of research.

Importantly, Servant Research also provides the opportunity for meaning-making for research participants. There is a long history of scholars studying ‘subjects’ using informed consent documentation as the single strategy for two-way engagement about the research process. This interaction can be conceptualized using social exchange theory, which posits that both parties must have a clear understanding of the rules under which they are operating, and willingness to engage is enhanced when each party complies with these rules (Ahmad et al., 2023). In the case of traditional research, the exchange typically involves one party (the research participant) providing their data, information, perspective, or specimen in exchange for a promise from the other party (the researcher) that they will abide by the standards of practice for research. From a transactional perspective, the two-way interaction about the research process ends with the signing of the consent form.

In spite of this approach, there is evidence that many research participants choose to participate for altruistic reasons and most participants generally believe that they are making important contributions to science (Haywood, 2016). There is also evidence that research participants are often disappointed that they do not receive more information about the study or about the results of the research (Kost et al., 2011).

Servant Research recognizes that participants who are more fully engaged with the research process have the same opportunity as the scholars conducting the research to find meaning making in their participation. At least for some types of Servant Research, the rules of engagement change, and the expectations for each participant become more complex, as each understands their role as more symbiotic. This may be particularly salient for participants from communities that have been harmed by research practices in the past and who may be more motivated to participate if they can clearly see the advantages of their participation for their community (Guillemin et al., 2016).

Considerations and Potential Challenges with Conducting Servant Research

Regardless of the inherent alignment of Servant Research with scholars across the Academy, there are some challenges that can make this type of work difficult. Those who wish to engage in Servant Research will need to develop an intentional approach for managing these and other challenges.

Promotion and Tenure Policies Can Affect the Ability to Conduct Servant Research

Universities are structured to separate the domains of faculty life (teaching, research, and service). Typically, each of these areas is assessed independently as faculty seek to achieve promotion or tenure. However, the overlapping nature of Servant Research means that the work that is done cannot easily be categorized into research or service, as each aspect of the work informs and supports the other. For faculty to achieve tenure or promotion, or indeed to have favorable annual reviews, the systems in which they are evaluated will need to accommodate this approach. There have been some national discussions that have encouraged universities to recognize the value of blending teaching, research, and service to address challenges faced by local and global communities (Holland, 2016). However, many universities continue to have policies that silo these three aspects of faculty life. Before embarking upon a research agenda grounded in Servant Research, faculty need to understand the potential implications of this type of work on their careers, and when appropriate, work within the university to develop promotion and tenure guidelines that recognize and support faculty work that exists in multiple domains. The work to change university and departmental systems to accommodate Servant Research will undoubtedly be led by tenured faculty.

An even more difficult challenge, however, may be the effects of the Western values of individualism and individualistic achievement on how Servant Research may be viewed within the promotion and tenure process. Although collaboration between and among scholars is often espoused as a university value, the reality is that few universities have clear policies that reward collaborative approaches or help researchers navigate the complexities of this work (Leahey & Barringer, 2020). What is even less clear at most institutions is how collaborations between researchers and research participants or between researchers and the communities they study could be valued or rewarded by the university.

Servant Research Can Be Perceived as Less Valuable Than Other Types of Research

Because Servant Research is so tightly connected to service, it can be dismissed, discounted, or devalued by some, given the lesser standing that service holds in many institutions of higher education. Service work has been found to play an insignificant role in institutional reward structures, including promotion and tenure (Mamiseishvili et al., 2016). There is also evidence that scholars who engage in research related to social justice can have their work devalued by institutions (Settles et al., 2021). Women and Scholars of Color who engage in Servant Research may find that it gives oppressive structures and systems yet another reason to diminish the importance of their work. Clearly, just as university systems must accommodate the overlapping of research and service, the philosophical framework of Servant Research must have institutional support.

This perception of the lesser value of this type of research may also mean that it is more difficult to obtain funding for Servant Research. Governmental agencies, private foundations and even intra-university funding streams may have a bias toward traditional research approaches that may fit more cleanly within research proposal guidelines.

Servant Research can also be undervalued when it does not align with the scientific ‘gold standard’ of study designs with randomized trials that allow for reproducible results. University leaders often use words like “correctness, rigor, clarity” to define high quality research (Aksnes et al., 2019, p. 7). Additionally, universities typically use quantitative research metrics, such as publication or citation counts, h-index, or grant income to assess research quality, often based on the belief that these metrics are impartial and easily understood by people unfamiliar with the specifics of the research (Helmer et al., 2020). The ultimate goal is not to have Servant Research replace ‘curiosity driven’ or other types of research nor to imply that Servant Research is a better or more lofty endeavor. Rather, universities will need to develop strategies to understand what constitutes high quality Servant Research so that it is recognized as having equal standing with other types of research endeavors.

Servant Research Has Complicated Ethical Implications

Research that engages and empowers other is complex and challenging. Often it requires the researcher to navigate multiple relationships with partners in the community, with scholars from other disciplines, and/or with community or governmental agencies that each have who have their own assumptions, perspectives, and values. Different partners can bring very different understandings of intended goals and outcomes of the research. Therefore, Servant Research must be entered into with intentionality, caution, and conversation. Existing ethical guidelines and IRB requirements may not adequately address all of the concerns that can arise. For example, some authors have questioned whether research that engages others is always in the participants’ best interest, asking what should be done if the research inadvertently puts people at risk (Brabeck et al., 2015) or produces findings that could negatively impact their communities (Williams et al., 2010). There are other ethical challenges, such as how those who engage in Servant Research recognize their own values and motivations without imposing those values on the outcomes. For example, when engaging in research that involves people in conflict, researchers may have an affinity for one group, yet must manage and make sense of disparate findings from participants with very polarized views who each have an important stake in the research outcomes. These types of situations add a unique complexity to managing concepts such as researcher neutrality that have long been at the core of scientific inquiry (Elicor, 2022).

In short, there are no easy answers, and Servant Research will require much more attention to the ethical considerations of this work as the concept moves forward. There are researchers from many different paradigms and methodologies who are already working to better understand these ethical and practical considerations (Ortiz et al., 2020). For example, Wilson and colleagues (2018) made recommendations for addressing these types of challenging ethical research issues within community engaged scholarship, even while recognizing that this will require much more work and effort. A benefit of the shared framework of Servant Research is that scholars who are addressing these concerns within their own discipline or methodology can share their findings and work collaboratively to address these complex issues.

The Time-Consuming Nature of Servant Research Can Limit Research Productivity

Some (although clearly not all) of the methodologies that are employed under the Servant Research umbrella require strong links with community partners. However, building these relationships can be time-consuming and a significant challenge for community-engaged scholarship (London et al., 2020). In addition, these partnerships are typically not immediately (or sometimes not ever) fruitful (Demers et al., 2022). University scholars who partner with outside organizations, such as schools, agencies, local governments, or international non-governmental organizations may face multiple levels of bureaucracy before any research can begin and may find that existing policies or restrictions at these partnering programs prevent meaningful engagement in this type of research, even when community partners wish to be involved. The time commitment required can be a significant barrier, particularly for doctoral students and untenured faculty who often have more pressure to publish research in a condensed timeline. Mentoring and collaborative research engagement by senior faculty and faculty advisors can assist with decision-making about how to engage in Servant Research as well as help to relieve some of the burden of the time-intensive nature of this work.

Servant Research Can be Intrapsychically Difficult and Draining

Research that engages participants who are survivors of trauma or violence, victims of abuse or neglect, have lived within oppressive, racist, or unjust systems, have identities that cause them to be marginalized or discounted, or have been harmed by unjust laws, unfair environmental policies, or harmful industrial practices can be exhausting. Intense and ongoing interactions with individuals who have suffered can lead to indirect trauma reactions, such as vicarious or secondary trauma, empathetic strain, compassion fatigue, and burnout (Berger, 2021). Ongoing engagement to fight systems of racial oppression is recognized as racial battle fatigue (Pitt et al., 2015).

This is difficult work, and it can leave scars. There are clearly researchers who have had their lives altered in difficult and challenging ways while conducting Servant Research. Some have rushed into the aftermath of violence, shootings, or natural disasters and have endured emotional pain. Others have instigated research that disrupts systems of power, questions authority, or challenges the status quo and have suffered workplace, political, economic, or social consequences. There is emerging recognition of the ongoing effects on researchers who engage in research that is intentionally designed to help people who have suffered. One study of trauma engaged researchers found that 57.7% reported moderate to extreme distress, with as many as 6.7% identified as at risk for development secondary traumatic stress (Whitt-Woosley & Sprang, 2018). There is also an understanding that doctoral students and new researchers, as well as researchers who share an identity or experience with those being researched, can be particularly overwhelmed by this type of research (Kumar & Cavallaro, 2018).

To help researchers who engage in this difficult work, several authors have created strategies at the contextual, organizational, and individual levels to help mitigate these negative consequences. For example, Berger emphasized the importance of receiving specific training before engaging in research of traumatized or marginalized populations, working in teams to provide support, receiving mentorship from trauma-informed supervisors, and creating safety plans to help researchers recognize when they are overwhelmed (2021). Kumar and Cavallaro (2018) created a comprehensive care plan for those who engage in emotionally demanding research, with strategies at the institutional and individual level.

Of course, Servant Research does not require the creation of ongoing and intensive relationships with participants, and research designs may focus more on data collection than immersion in specific distressing or triggering stories. Servant Research, by its definition, only requires that people and communities are the intended benefactors of the research, and secondary trauma can occur in quantitative research studies as well (Fincham et al., 2008). This means that at least for some faculty and doctoral students who engage in Servant Research, the traumatic effects come not from the personal engagement with participants but from the exposure to the data and outcomes themselves. The potential detrimental effects of researcher well-being for this type of study design should not be overlooked. Regardless of research design, prolonged engagement with the realities of the experiences of those who are suffering can be a painful experience. Importantly, however, Servant Research can also lead to positive impacts on the researcher, including post-traumatic growth, increased empathy, higher levels of resilience, and an increased passion for social justice (Berger, 2021).

Servant Research Moves the Primary Focus from the Researcher to the Research

Scholars within academia gain credibility through their research, and it might be tempting to imply that the Servant Research model puts all emphasis on the research at the expense of the researcher. Yet it is neither realistic nor helpful to completely dis-embed the scholar from the scholarship. Presenting Servant Research as other-focused should is not meant to imply that the researcher is not involved or invested, nor does it suggest that the researcher will not have gains, such as career advancement or recognition, from engaging in this work. However, the primary focus remains on the research.

This emphasis on the research underscores the importance of framing this work as Servant Research rather than framing the scholar as a Servant Researcher. It is the research, not the researcher, that is the servant. Importantly, the word ‘servant’ is applied to the process and the product, not the person. This is important for several reasons. First, although scholars might have some aspect of their research agenda that aligns with Servant Research, it should not be implied that all of their work falls within this umbrella. Scholars can realistically have one research line that aligns with Servant Research while other research lines do not. Second, framing the research as the servant is consistent with the framework’s emphasis on research humility, which takes the focus and attention away from the researcher and onto the work being conducted. A third justification for the distinction between researcher and research draws parallels from the servant leadership literature. Using the word servant, when applied to a person, ignores the long history of subjugation, racism, and colonization that is attached to the term. Importantly, those who use the term servant leader, critics argue, fail to understand that whereas deciding whether to be a leader might be an elective choice, those who have lived a life of servitude have done so for survival and without choice (Eaton, 2020). These same critics argue that although the concepts behind servant leadership are consistent with social justice imperatives, the use of the word to describe people is not. In short, the Servant Research framework intentionally and carefully frames the work, not the person, as the servant.

Implications for Servant Research

Across the Academy, scholars are already engaging in Servant Research. What has been missing is a universal term that acknowledges and names this work in order to provide a framework for current practice as well as a language for future discussion with intentionality and reflection. Servant Research, as it is currently being conducted, does not yet have a name or clear organizing philosophical framework that allows work coming from multiple disciplines, all types of methodologies and that investigates very different content to be identified as sharing these common characteristics. Naming, defining, and operationalizing the term has implications at multiple levels, from the personal, through the collaborative, systemic, community, professional, and ultimately, the broader interprofessional level.

At the personal level, naming and defining this practice allows individual scholars, including graduate students, who engage in this research to finally have a language to define and describe the work that they do. Importantly, how individuals describe and define their work matters. A label that allows scholars to describe the type of research they conduct means that they have a language to communicate this work to others and to better understand the work and their relationship to it themselves. When people perceive that they are performing a job or task that aligns with their personal values, they are more likely to report higher levels of job satisfaction (Kim & Choi, 2018). From this perspective, scholars who are asked to engage in research as part of their role may find a disconnect between their personal values and interests when the research is seen as unrelated to their own personal values or worldview. Those same scholars, when engaging in Servant Research, may find more concordance. The ability to accurately define and describe, and attribute personal meaning to, the research that is being conducted is a potential benefit of this new label.

Creating a shared nomenclature also means that scholars within and across universities who engage in this work can create collaborative partnerships with others who engage in Servant Research, both within their fields and across other disciplines. They can build on the concept, create a body of research and literature about their work, help create ethical guidelines that address the complexity of this work, and share their strategies and successes. A label for this type of research allows for key word searches that will bring like-minded researchers together. Creating a shared language also allows researchers with a shared vision to collaborate for community-wide change, including removing structural barriers and developing protocols and procedures to support this work. Within universities, this could include modifications to Institutional Review Board policies that do not recognize how this type of research can vary from traditional research (Bell & Lewis, 2023) or changes to promotion and tenure policies at college and university levels to ensure that Servant Research is valued and supported. It could also enhance multidisciplinary collaboration for scholars who share a similar vision for large-scale change but currently use different discipline-specific nomenclature. With a shared language supported by a philosophical framework, broader social systems outside of the university can benefit as they seek researchers who will assist them as partners in Servant Research.

At the national level, a shared vision and understanding of Servant Research can contribute to the broader discussion about the role of research in the Academy, including how Servant Research can and should be embedded within graduate training programs. Importantly, another new term introduced within this model, Research Humility, can help aid understanding of important dispositions of those who engage in research.

Servant Research: Moving Forward

There is clearly much work to be done as the concept of Servant Research moves forward. There will need to be research on the framework, including the development of psychometrically sound measures to help define and describe actions that are consistent with this approach, strategies to help scholars develop and implement research agendas that align with the principles of empathy, altruism, empowerment, and service, and outcome measures to help researchers better understand the impact of their Servant Research on the communities and people they serve. There is a need for research and writing on the effects of adopting this framework within universities, departments, and specific programs, including how this approach to research can be supported and evaluated. There will need to be further conversations about the ethical use of Servant Research, with an emphasis on developing strategies to ensure that the research truly benefits the intended individuals and communities, especially in the face of competing demands where helping one group or community could be perceived as ignoring the needs of, or even harming, another. It is the scholars who engage in this type of research who will need to move the conversation forward as they learn from their experiences, as well as the experiences of their research participants, and adjust and refine the model accordingly.

Ultimately, the framework of Servant Research accommodates many different research methodologies, topics, and disciplines, and it is probable that many scholars will find ways to situate at least some of their research under this broad umbrella. However, this is just the starting place. It is likely that there are additional qualities of Servant Research that are not yet part of the model. In general, understanding the role that Servant Research plays will require significant attention and research if it is to help scholars better understand and ultimately embrace this new philosophical and organizational framework.