Table 2 Categories of barriers and facilitators to the uptake of, engagement in and support for D&I research in academia
| Level | Barriers | Facilitators |
|---|---|---|
| Individual | 1. Insufficient D&I training/courses ▪ Lack of knowledge, understanding and skills to conduct D&I research 2. Individual perceptions of scientific approaches ▪ Perceived superiority of linear models of translation and preference for efficacy studies ▪ Perceived lack of ‘outcomes’ from D&I research; large ‘trade off’ and ‘lack of return on investment’ 3. Development and maintenance of stakeholder relationships ▪ Funding and time required, and difficulties obtaining sufficient support/resources to conduct D&I research 4. Challenges of real-world research methodologies ▪ Perceptions D&I is ‘messy’, difficult to design, interpret and write-up ▪ Perceived ‘intimidating’ field to enter into unskilled | 1. Increased opportunities for D&I in academia, research and teaching ▪ Development of certified training/courses nationally, embedding D&I science within HDR teaching/training 2. Shifting cultural academic mindset and types of research ▪ Managing academic expectations of D&I research, including increased acceptance of D&I high quality consensus methodologies 3. Partnership network developed a priori and over time ▪ Maintenance of a ‘dynamic’ partner network across entire translation system; enhances flexibility during relationship/partner change 4. Leveraging off academic institution’s mission statement/objectives ▪ Strategically aligning research and reinforcing academics’ responsibility for translation to increase perceived value 5. Collective advocacy to change the academic system ▪ Academics collectively challenge journal ‘norms’ and culture of public health research to embrace a wider perspective of real-world impact |
| Organisational | 1. Lack of expertise in D&I science in academic institutions ▪ Lack of trained D&I scientists limits capacity building in D&I 2. Embedded culture not conducive to translational research ▪ Overemphasis on outcome-orientated metrics, top down approach of ‘pushing’ interventions onto communities ▪ Lack of understanding (internal and external) of the challenges conducting D&I research, underlying theory, validated methodology and measures; linked to perceived lack of value 3. ECR training (e.g., PhD programs) doesn’t facilitate D&I research ▪ Lack of inclusion of D&I in HDR teaching/training; ECRs have minimal skills/knowledge of translation, reinforced via entrenched organisational practices ▪ Time required for stakeholder engagement exceeds PhD time/funding; difficult to build ECR capacity in D&I | 1. Increase employment/opportunities for D&I scientists ▪ Targeted recruitment of trained D&I scientists, development of PhD programs dedicated to D&I science 2. Support for D&I involvement at different career stages ▪ Incentivise and enable academic engagement in D&I science according to career stage demands, expectations and requirements 3. Shift organisational cultural towards research translation ▪ Create organisational culture that values D&I and co-production of evidence with stakeholders 4. Collaborative knowledge sharing across institutions ▪ Encourage and facilitate (e.g., resources/time) collaborations locally with stakeholders and across academic institutions |
| System | 1. Funding priorities and overemphasis on ‘innovation’ ▪ Short-term vision and priorities of funders/academic system not conducive to D&I science; reinforces perceived lack of value and priority of D&I and perceptions ‘less innovative’ 2. Demands for research impact vs. changes in funding environment ▪ Increased academic pressure for demonstrable public health impact; funding agencies slow to support types of research required and lack of D&I expertise/understanding on funding review panels 3. Journal publishing criteria non-conducive to D&I research ▪ Journal criterions counteractive to real-world/D&I research, less exposure of D&I research in major journals; creates uncertainty in publishing and thus disincentive for ECRs/academics 4. Outcome- and output-orientated academic performance structure ▪ Reinforces perceived ‘un-appeal’ of D&I; dis-incentivises academics | 1. Funding and outcome metrics prioritising stakeholder involvement ▪ Funding schemes dedicated to co-production/participatory approaches ▪ System incentives for collaborative working across organisations 2. Research translation embedded in academic performance metrics ▪ Part of internal (e.g., University) and external (e.g., national assessments) reporting/assessment criteria 3. Restructure of academic system via Government leadership ▪ Top-down pressure to enact system change and leverage country-wide resources for D&I; ‘upstream’ academic drive for change ‘piecemeal’ 4. Increase presence of D&I at national/international conferences ▪ Via interest groups and networks of expertise within and associated with major conferences/societies 5. Journals dedicated to publishing D&I research ▪ Increase journals/broadening selection criteria to facilitate and incentivise publishing of D&I research |