{"id":1192,"date":"2026-06-03T07:00:15","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T07:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmjleader\/?p=1192"},"modified":"2026-05-28T15:34:28","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T15:34:28","slug":"why-a-research-identity-and-community-matter-for-global-health-workforce-development-by-lisa-bunn-and-rosi-raine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmjleader\/2026\/06\/03\/why-a-research-identity-and-community-matter-for-global-health-workforce-development-by-lisa-bunn-and-rosi-raine\/","title":{"rendered":"Why a research identity and community matter for global health workforce development. By Lisa Bunn and Rosi Raine"},"content":{"rendered":"

Across global health systems, developing a research<\/span>\u2011<\/span>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.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Research Capacity\u2013Participation Paradox<\/b><\/p>\n

Evidence-based practice has been established for decades and is now embedded within clinical decision<\/span>\u2011<\/span>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].<\/span><\/p>\n

Disparities persist even in well<\/span>\u2011<\/span>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].<\/span><\/p>\n

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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Culture and community<\/b><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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].<\/span><\/p>\n

This shifts the focus to more fundamental questions:<\/span><\/p>\n