Pragmatic Problems in Programs of Research Larry D. Gruppen, Ph.D. University of Michigan, USA

Two Types of “Program of Research” The Dolmans definition: 1. A series of studies that build upon each other using various theoretical perspectives and methodologies 2. Aligning or coordinating research plans/agendas Differences between individual vs. group programs of research

Individual Programs Pros Managing the program activities Continuity in perspective and building on prior results Individual motivation Cons Limited theoretical or methodological approaches Responsible for everything – no sharing the workload Individual motivation

Group Programs Pros Richer range of expertise and perspectives Access to more resources Greater continuity in the program – not dependent on one person Cons Defining the program Sharing and collaboration Maintaining the group Shifting group membership More competing priorities and distractions

Pragmatic Issues – General

Defining the Program of Research Significant question – fundable, theoretical, publishable, practical Interesting to you – motivation Feasible – opportunities, resources, expertise, methods

Funding and Resources Funding protects time and provides “legitimacy” for the program Funding is difficult to find Government Foundations Institutional “Hidden”

Funding and Resources Necessary resources depend on methodology and research questions Transcription Data management and analysis Measurement Access and permissions

Pragmatic Issue – Individual Programs

Depth vs. Breadth “Program of research” implies depth Depth can show intellectual rigor and define a ‘reputation’ “Who do you think of when topic X arises?” Breadth demonstrates flexibility Many medical educators must do many things

Maintaining Focus Competing demands of one’s job Needs of others often take precedent Competing professional priorities Excel in research, patient care, or teaching? Intellectual distractions Researchers tend to be curious about many things

Pragmatic Issues – Group Programs

Forming the Group Shared interest/commitment Complementary expertise – theory, methods Openness to alternative ideas and approaches Access to needed resources Personal compatibility Generosity and altruism

Maintaining the Group Frequent communication Clear assignments and deadlines Define authorship/ownership issues Publicity – local and (inter)national communities

In Conclusion What Lambert and Diana said: Collaborate and network (AMEE provides perfect opportunity) Respect the complexity of important questions Count the costs of pursuing a program of research and prepare for them