Across global health systems, developing a research‑skilled workforce has become a strategic priority, driven by growing evidence that research engagement is associated with better healthcare performance and improved patient outcomes [1]. Health systems across the world are investing heavily in research, yet many healthcare professionals remain interested in research but not actively engaged in it [2,3]. This blog interrogates why the transition from research curiosity to active engagement remains out of reach for much of the workforce.

The Research Capacity–Participation Paradox

Evidence-based practice has been established for decades and is now embedded within clinical decision‑making and professional standards [4]. Yet participation in research remains uneven; concentrated among certain professions, while nursing, allied health, and social care staff remain underrepresented [5].

Disparities persist even in well‑resourced systems. In the United Kingdom, research is embedded within professional regulatory frameworks and supported by major national investment through organisations such as the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Despite this, barriers to undertaking research in practice remain significant; including lack of time, infrastructure, career pathways, and organisational support [2,5].

Much of the global effort to build research capacity has focused on developing skills, infrastructure, and organisational systems [6]. These are necessary, but they are not sufficient. A paradox remains: increased investment in research does not automatically lead to increased participation. Perhaps the problem is that capacity is not determined by capability alone, but by culture, community, and identity. 

Culture and community

Research culture is increasingly evaluated across university and health and care organisations, often demonstrating variability and relatively low satisfaction outside research-intensive areas [7-10]. However, there remains no universally agreed definition of research culture, and its meaning varies across professional groups and contexts.

Previous research has identified organisational barriers, leadership, inclusion, and access to support as critical determinants of engagement in research activity [2,11]. However, even when structural barriers such as time or funding are addressed, participation may remain limited, reflecting deeper cultural and relational factors [3].

This shifts the focus to more fundamental questions:

• What do individuals perceive as a positive research culture?
• Do health professionals perceive research as a valued part of their role?

Research identity: the missing link in workforce strategy

Evidence consistently demonstrates that engagement in research is shaped not only by capability, but by how professionals perceive their role in relation to research [2]. What matters is not just whether individuals can do research, but whether they believe that they should.

This is research identity.

Identity is not simply an individual attribute; it is socially constructed through professional socialisation, cultural expectations, and access to opportunity [12]. Within the context of research, it determines whether professionals:

• seek out research opportunities
• feel confident to engage
• sustain involvement over time

Without research identity, research remains something people could do, but not something they see as part of their role.

The invisible majority: the research‑curious workforce

The largest untapped resource in global health research is not hidden in elite institutions—it is already embedded within the workforce. It is the “research‑curious” workforce: professionals who recognise the value of research but lack the identity, pathways, support, or permission to engage.

Evidence shows that healthcare professionals often hold positive attitudes towards research while simultaneously experiencing structural barriers, including time, mentorship, and organisational support, that prevent participation [2,3]. The result is a structural failure: curiosity alone does not translate into participation.

Current workforce strategies tend to focus on those already engaged or on developing research leaders, rather than enabling early‑stage participation [5]. This creates a critical transitional gap, where health systems invest in research capacity while excluding much of the workforce from participating in it.

Culture determines capability and capacity

If research identity is the missing link at the individual level, organisational culture is the system‑level determinant.

Research engagement is shaped by leadership, mentorship, infrastructure, and workload—but also by legitimacy:

• Who is expected to do research?
• Who is supported to do research?
• Who feels they are allowed to do research?

Organisational culture is consistently associated with workforce performance and patient outcomes in healthcare systems [11]. In the context of research, it also shapes participation. Where research is visible, valued, and integrated into practice, engagement increases. Where it remains peripheral, participation remains limited, regardless of investment.

A culture of equity

While policy attention has often focused on high‑income systems, these challenges are global.

Health systems worldwide face workforce shortages, increasing demand, and the need to embed evidence-based care [13]. At the same time, persistent inequities exist in research participation and leadership, both between professional groups and across global regions [14].

Research identity is not evenly distributed, it reflects professional hierarchies, access to opportunity, and structural inequities [15]. If unaddressed, current approaches risk entrenching these inequities rather than reducing them.

From capacity building to system transformation

Transforming a research‑skilled workforce into a research‑active workforce requires a shift from training individuals to transforming systems.

Health systems should:

• Normalise research across professional roles, embedding expectations within education, role descriptions and standards
• Invest in the research‑curious stage, creating accessible entry points into research participation
• Measure participation, not just outputs, tracking engagement across professions and career stages
• Align career pathways with research, ensuring it is integrated rather than optional
• Foster communities of practice, which support knowledge exchange and nurture identity, capability and capacity [16]

From policy ambition to practical action

Encouragingly, system‑level initiatives are emerging to address this gap.

In England, programmes such as the NIHR INSIGHT initiative aim to support early‑stage research engagement and broaden access to research careers across health and social care professions [17]. These initiatives recognise that developing a research‑active workforce requires early, inclusive, and structured support, rather than reliance on traditional academic pathways.

Such approaches are critical, not because they create immediate research leaders, but because they build the conditions in which research identity can develop and positively influence culture.

A call to action

The global ambition to embed research within healthcare is both necessary and urgent. But achieving it requires a fundamental shift.

The question is not simply how we equip professionals with research skills, but how we enable them to see research as part of their professional identity.

Without this shift, investment in research capacity will continue to fall short; benefiting those already engaged while leaving the majority behind.

Ultimately, a research‑active workforce could be re-defined from how many people can do research, to how many believe that they belong in research; that it is part of their role and a shared responsibility for improving patient care.

References

1. Boaz A, Goodenough B, Hanney S, Soper B. If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2024 Aug 19;22(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01187-7.
2. Lee S, Gifford J, Flood V. Enablers and barriers of research engagement among clinicians. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2024;17:4075–4087. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S463837 
3. Matheson M, Skinner IW, Vehagen A, et al. Barriers and enablers to health professional research engagement: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.  Nurs Health Sci. 2025;27:e70022. doi:10.1111/nhs.70022 
4. Sackett D L, Rosenberg W M C, Gray J A M, Haynes R B, Richardson W S. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t BMJ 1996; 312 :71 doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
5. Trusson D, Rowley E, Bramley L. A mixed-methods study of challenges and benefits of clinical academic careers for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. BMJ Open 2019;9:e030595. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030595
6. Cooke, J. A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care. BMC Fam Pract 2005;6, 44. doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-6-44
7. Cordrey, T., King, E., Pilkington, E. et al. Exploring research capacity and culture of allied health professionals: a mixed methods evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res 22, 85 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07480-x
8. Frakking, T., Craswell, A., Clayton, A., & Waugh, J. Evaluation of Research Capacity and Culture of Health Professionals Working with Women, Children and Families at an Australian Public Hospital: A Cross Sectional Observational Study. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 2021;14, 2755–2766. doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S330647
9. Comer, C., Collings, R., McCracken, A. Payne, C. & Moore, A. Allied health professionals’ perceptions of research in the United Kingdom national health service: a survey of research capacity and culture. BMC Health Serv Res 2022;22, 1094. doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08465-6
10. Bell, L., Chapman, R., Ashton, C. et al. Baseline assessments of research capacity, capability and culture in UK local authorities: reflections from evaluators embedded in Health Determinants Research Collaborations. Health Res Policy Sys 2025;23, 68. doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01323-x
11. Braithwaite J, Herkes J, Ludlow K, Testa L, Lamprell, G. Association between organisational and workplace cultures, and patient outcomes: systematic review. BMJ Open 2017;7:e017708. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017708
12. Cruess, RL, Cruess, SR, Boudreau, JD, Snell, L, Steinert, Y. A Schematic Representation of the Professional Identity Formation and Socialization of Medical Students and Residents: A Guide for Medical Educators, Academic Medicine. 2015; 90, 6; 718–725, https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000700
13. Correia, T., Kuhlmann, E., Lotta, G., Beja, A., Morais, R., Zapata, T. and Campbell, J. Turning the global health and care workforce crisis into action: The pathway to effective evidence-based policy and implementation. Int J Health Plann Mgmt. 2025; 40: 224-233. doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3860
14. Olufadewa I, Adesina M, Ayorinde T. Global health in low-income and middle-income countries: a framework for action. The Lancet Global Health, 9, e899-e900 doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00143-1
15. Kett PM, Shahrir S, Bekemeier B, Schaffer K, Zemmel DJ, Patterson, DG. Individual and organizational factors associated with public health workforce competencies to advance health equity. PLOS Global Public Health 2025; 5(1): e0004068. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004068
16. Noar AP, Jeffery HE, Subbiah Ponniah H, Jaffer U. The aims and effectiveness of communities of practice in healthcare: A systematic review. PLOS ONE. 2023; 18(10): e0292343. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292343
17. National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). INSIGHT programme: supporting early career development in health and care research. 2024. Available at: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/career-development/research-career-funding-programmes/supporting-career-development/insight-programme (accessed 16 May 2026).

Authors

Lisa Bunn

Dr Lisa Bunn is an Associate Professor of Neurological Rehabilitation and NIHR Senior Research Leader. She works across clinical practice, research, and workforce development, with a focus on evidence-based care, research capacity building, and patient engagement. Her work spans national and international initiatives to develop research-skilled health and care workforces and to translate complex research into meaningful practice. 

Rosi Raine

Dr Rosi Raine is an Associate Professor of Occupational Therapy and Associate Dean of the Faculty of Health at the University of Plymouth.

Declarations of Interest
No interests to declare.