Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40761709›Full record

ArticleHigher education2025

The gravity of the status quo: the response of research governance to system-level shocks.

G E Derrick, J Robson, A Oancea, X Xu, M R Stan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Higher education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

G E DerrickCentre for Higher Education Transformations (CHET), School of Education, University of Bristol, 35 Berkeley Square, Bristol, BS8 1JA UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5386-8653
J RobsonCentre for Global Higher Education, Department of Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PY UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8114-2582
A OanceaCentre for Global Higher Education, Department of Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PY UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8499-7036
X XuCentre for Global Higher Education, Department of Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PY UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9972-8995
M R StanSchool of Economics and Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC, C.so Matteotti, 22 - 21053 Castellanza (VA), Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3683-4475

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using interviews with global research stakeholders, this research explores how stakeholders within research-system-level research governance organisations conceptualised, responded to, and reasoned the realities of disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and how they positioned procedural changes to their governance mechanisms. Given that system shocks present critical challenges to established practices and embedded institutional norms, we use neo-institutional theory as a heuristic device to examine the relationship between the exogenous shock of COVID-19, trajectories of institutional norms and cultures, and the role institutional stakeholders play in managing responses. Across all the research systems studied (with particular focus on the UK, Australia, Norway, New Zealand, Hong Kong SAR, and Italy), participants were concerned about how the shock provided by COVID-19 had both revealed and entrenched deep inequalities inherent in their research systems and globally. There were tensions in how participants centralised the concept of the 'normal' as part of a process of recovery permeating all system-level responses, often with a sense of

Indexed as

COVID-19InequalitiesPandemic responseResearch cultureResearch governanceResearch systems

Identifiers

PMID40761709
PMCPMC12317853

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.