Assessing research culture and capacity amongst faculty at a north American chiropractic institution: an explanatory mixed methods study.

Background: Research enables a profession to establish its cultural authority, validate its professional roles and ensure ongoing improvement in the quality of its academic programming. Despite the clear importance of research, a mature research culture has eluded the chiropractic profession. A fostering institutional culture that enables, values, and supports research activity is essential to building research capacity. Our study aimed to collect information about the existing research capacity and culture at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) and explore the views, attitudes and experiences of faculty members regarding research.

Methods: We conducted a sequential explanatory mixed methods study with quantitative priority between April and July, 2023. Quantitative data were collected using the Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool. Survey results guided the qualitative data collected from four faculty focus groups with varying levels of research experience. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics by domain and stratified by research education and workload. The qualitative data were thematically analyzed and then integrated with the quantitative results to provide deeper meaning to the results.

Results: The faculty survey response rate was 42% (59/144). Attributes at the organization or department level were consistently rated as either moderate or high; however, research skills at an individual level were more variable and influenced by factors such as research workload and highest research-related academic qualification. Qualitative focus group data were categorized under four themes: institutional factors, resource allocation, career pathways and personal factors. Lower scores for survey items related to mentorship, research planning and ensuring faculty research career pathways, as well as the identified workload and time-related barriers (e.g., other work roles and desire for work/life balance) for engaging in research were supported by each of the four themes. Research motivators included keeping the brain stimulated, developing skills and increasing job satisfaction.

Conclusion: The quantitative and qualitative information in this study provides a baseline evaluation for RCC and identifies key factors impacting RCC at the CMCC. This information is critical for planning, developing, implementing, and evaluating future interventions to enhance research capacity. Ultimately, these efforts are aimed at maturing the research culture of the chiropractic profession.