Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study

ABSTRACT

To rapidly respond to the COVID-19 public health crisis, researchers have been called upon to prioritize pandemic research, while simultaneously modifying their existing research to maintain the safety of all stakeholders. This study aims to explore the experiences of health science researchers in their scientific practices, research priorities, and professional relational dynamics due to COVID-19. Specifically, we interviewed 31 researchers from diverse fields at the University of Texas Medical Branch. Participants worked on COVID-19, non-COVID-19 related research, or both. We integrated inductive and deductive coding using a thematic coding method. The following four themes were explored: 1) impact of research, 2) research priorities, 3) professional relationships and 4) contextual influences on science. Participants were drawn to COVID-19 work for a diversity of reasons including social need, scientific interest, professional duty, and increased access to funding opportunities. While collaborations have increased for COVID-19 researchers, interpersonal relationships have been challenging for participants. Additionally, political, familial, and personal stresses due to the pandemic have taken a toll on researchers in very different and often inequitable ways. To ensure team cohesion, there is a need to develop research practices, policies and systems that value empathy, flexibility, and interdependence.

KEYWORDS:

• COVID-19
• qualitative study
• research dynamics
• research practices
• research priorities
• team science
• social dynamics of science
• team conflict

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Drs David Resnik and Sara Chandros Hull for their critical feedback regarding the research questionnaire. We would like to thank Drs Lisa Campo-Engelstein and Stephen Molldrem for their critical feedback during manuscript development.

Disclosure statement

Authors have no financial or personal interests or beliefs that could affect, or be perceived to affect, our capacity to conduct this research in an impartial manner.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Institutional Review Board (IRB; # 20-0177) determined that this study was of minimal risk and exempt from full research based on the US federal regulations. Consent was conducted orally and detailed information regarding the study was sent to the participants before the study.

Data availability

The data for this research is qualitative and identifiable in nature and therefore cannot be shared.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2130058.

Notes

1. Expanded use authorization is the acceptance of a medical produce (e.g., vaccine) for medical use during a medical emergency when evidence suggests that the benefits outweigh the expected risks.

2. To reduce the scope of this study and ensure proper analysis, we separated the themes in different manuscripts. The first targets issues specific to research integrity (Smith, Rakestraw, and Farroni 2022) and the second – this manuscript – looks at the changes in priorities of research topics and dynamics in research teams.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported in part from the Clinical and Translational Science Award (UL1TR001439) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health.