Exploring Research Capacity Building and Culture within Nursing Educational Institutions in Saudi Arabia: A Multiple Case Study

Abstract

Unlike other academic disciplines, nursing is relatively new to the academic context. In many countries, particularly in countries where nurse training shifted to the university sector, the interest in building nursing research capacity increased to align with the new roles and expectations in academia and to facilitate the production of high-quality research to inform nursing practice (McCarthy & Fitzpatrick, 2008). Building on this shift toward academia, countries like the UK, USA, Australia, and Ireland have made considerable strides. Nursing leaders and educators in these countries have recognised the critical need to strengthen RCB while also acknowledging the barriers and facilitators that influence its development. Therefore, RCB has emerged as essential to advancing the nursing discipline within academic institutions (Chen, Sun, Tang, & Castro, 2019). In Saudi Arabia (SA), the situation is similar to many other countries where nursing is new to academia and where nursing academic staff are rarely involved in conducting research (Darawad et al., 2018). While quantitative papers have been published on identifying the factors affecting research productivity among nursing academic staff, no studies are currently available that explore nursing research capacity building and culture in nursing educational settings. AIM: To explore research capacity building (RCB) and the factors that facilitate and hinder RCB in nursing colleges in Saudi Arabia. Design: Qualitative multiple case studies. Methods: Data were collected between December 2021 and July 2022 from two nursing colleges in Saudi Arabia using documentary analysis, semi-structured interviews, and observational memos. Sample: In In case study one, ten interviews were conducted, including: academic staff (n = 7), college leaders (n = 2), and internal stakeholders at higher leadership positions (n = 1). Twenty-seven documents were included, which were divided into five groups: organisational vision and mission (n = 3), minutes of committee (n = 5), policy documents (n = 5), annual report (n = 2), and publications in the university journal “Journal of the North for Basic and Applied Sciences” (n = 12). In case study two: Nine interviews were conducted, including: academic staff (n = 6), college leaders (n = 2), and internal stakeholders (n = 1). Fifteen documents were included, which were divided into four groups: organisational vision and mission (n = 3), policy documents (n = 5), research activity guidelines (n = 5), and research centre documents at the college (n = 2). Data Analysis: Thematic analysis was used to analyse data using a framework developed by (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Sheffield and both case sites. Findings: • The study results indicate that the process of building research capacity occurs on multiple levels and that these levels are not distinct but interconnected. Research capacity building was greatly impacted by institutional support and resourcing, collaboration and networking, and communication at multiple levels, including individual, college, organisation, and national. • Absence of effective research leadership and infrastructure, time constraints, and an existing culture of competition and individualised work were all suggested as having a negative impact on building research capacity. • The university’s policy and regulations have shaped the current research culture in the colleges, particularly the policies and regulations relating to promotion and research funding. • The current collaboration in nursing research tends to be informally established by individual efforts, and there is generally an absence of formal collaborations and partnerships between academia and practice, which contributes to a limited engagement of academic and clinical nurses in doing collaborative research. • Lack of clear communication channels between higher education and health sectors contributes to the complexity of knowledge exchange and applying evidence-based practice (EBP), which is perceived by academic staff as a demotivator to publishing high-quality research. • Facilitators to RCB include the scholarship program, networking through social media, and specifying time for research, which was a useful strategy in managing time and providing space for research activities. Recommendation: At the national level, the study recommends raising the nursing voice, and empowering policymakers and leaders to translate evidence-based practice (EBP) into clinical settings. To incorporate nursing perspectives, the Saudi National Institute of Health should engage nursing policymakers, leaders, and expert researchers in related committees. At the organisational level, universities should revise policies, particularly the promotion policy and funding system, and develop policies and regulations to attract external funding. Universities should also include a nursing academic in existing research strategic plan committees. At the college level, research leadership should be embedded in Saudi nursing colleges, with a focus on improving job recruitment criteria, targeting research experts, establishing mentorship schemes and developing sustainable research capacity building. Building research collaboration within and across disciplines is also crucial, with leaders from both institutions and organisations developing clear goals and shared visions. Lastly, individual academic staff should align their research interests with college and university objectives, enhance their research skills, and partner with experienced researchers or mentors for guidance and support. Conclusion: This multiple case study explored a range of factors that affect research capacity in nursing colleges in Saudi Arabia and provides recommendations for developing a positive research culture in these settings.