The association of thinking styles with research agendas among academics in the social sciences

Abstract

Research agendas are understudied, despite being key to academic knowledge creation. The literature suggests that the ways that academics determine their research agendas are conditioned by individual, organisational and environmental characteristics. This study explores the cognitive aspects of academics' research agendas in the social sciences by using a theory on thinking styles as an analytical framework. The results suggest that the research agendas of academics in the social sciences are significantly associated with their thinking styles. These findings aid understanding of how academics set their research agendas. This study also represents an important landmark in research on thinking styles, focusing on academic research work as a potential venue for further studies. The findings are relevant for policymakers, research funding agencies, university administrators and academics because they have implications for academic research development processes, outcomes, and for research and academic identity socialisation during doctoral studies.

Research agendas and organizational commitment among academics in mainland China

“…Another possible reason is that some other older academics, despite having not been recognized as world-famed scholars, were actually not aspired to become so because they either were satisfied with their own research or had already given up striving for such reputation at their older ages. The present finding resonates with the existing literature, suggesting that older academics tend to be engaged in more cohesive research agendas (Horta & Santos, 2020 ; Santos et al, 2020 ; Zhang et al, 2020 ).…”

“…Existing studies suggested that research agendas vary by demographic and organizational factors. For example, older academics tend to be engaged in more cohesive research agendas than do younger academics (Horta & Santos, 2020 ; Santos et al, 2020 ; Zhang et al, 2020 ). With the exception of one study (Santos & Horta, 2018 ) that did not identify gender difference, the existing studies (e.g., Horta & Santos, 2020 ; Santos et al, 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2020 ) found that male and senior academics are likely to pursue innovative research agendas and that female and junior academics tend to pursue cohesive agendas.…”

“…More recent studies (Horta & Santos, 2020 ; Santos et al, 2020 ; Zhang & Horta, 2022 ; Zhang et al, 2020 ) have demonstrated that six of the eight research agendas (all except mentor influence and tolerance for low funding) are value laden: trailblazing research agendas are more adaptive, and cohesive research agendas are more maladaptive. Particularly, trailblazing research agendas were significantly associated with adaptive attributes, including desirable personality traits (e.g., conscientiousness and open mindedness), creative teaching and thinking styles, and job satisfaction, whereas cohesive research agendas were significantly related to more maladaptive attributes, including undesirable personality traits (e.g., neuroticism), norm-favoring teaching and thinking styles, and job dissatisfaction (Horta & Santos, 2020 ; Santos et al, 2020 ; Zhang & Horta, 2022 ; Zhang et al, 2020 ). Conceptualized as motivational goals concerning academics’ research, research agendas have not been examined against the construct of organizational commitment—an important theoretical construct in Meyer et al’s ( 2004 ) integrative model of employee commitment and motivation.…”

How are nature-based solutions contributing to priority societal challenges surrounding human well-being in the United Kingdom: a systematic map

“…The rationale of academics in determining study priorities has been investigated recently. Santos et al [34] suggest that 'thinking styles' of academics, at least in the social sciences, can have significant relevance for the knowledge available to policy makers. They concluded, following a participatory survey of 529 academics, that "current performativity, indicators craze, research assessments and research projects' limited duration and expected deliverables may be driving for publications en masse with short-term focuses, rather than fomenting research programmes that are longer term, stable and focused on innovative and transformative research" [34].…”

“…Santos et al [34] suggest that 'thinking styles' of academics, at least in the social sciences, can have significant relevance for the knowledge available to policy makers. They concluded, following a participatory survey of 529 academics, that "current performativity, indicators craze, research assessments and research projects' limited duration and expected deliverables may be driving for publications en masse with short-term focuses, rather than fomenting research programmes that are longer term, stable and focused on innovative and transformative research" [34]. While there is evidence that the research donor community is changing, becoming more interdisciplinary and even requiring transdisciplinary studies, there is little evidence of changing attitudes within the academic community where the pressure to publish in high impact single discipline journals is primary, despite increasing attention on the detrimental effect this approach has on knowledge generation [35].…”