Do universities support solutions-oriented collaborative research? Constraints to wicked problems scholarship in higher education

Wicked problems lack objectively correct solutions and require work across ideological and epistemological differences. Recent calls emphasize training scholars to address such challenges, yet less attention is given to whether universities’ structures and cultures actually support solutions-oriented, collaborative research. This study asks: What do institutional incentives in higher education support in terms of practices and outputs related to solutions-oriented, collaborative scholarship? Are these structures felt evenly across titles and positions? The research focuses on scholars positioned differently within R1 U.S. universities and embedded in disciplinary norms, examining how institutional location (graduate/postdoc, research scientist, untenured tenure-track, tenured, extension scientist) shapes what counts as valuable work. The study uses mixed qualitative methods with 44 FEW-nexus researchers to assess how incentives, metrics, and organizational contexts enable or constrain wicked-problems scholarship.

The paper situates wicked-problems scholarship as purpose-driven, requiring disciplinary depth and cross-stakeholder collaboration. It adopts an inclusive use of interdisciplinarity and reviews scholarship on contested standards of ‘good research’ across communities of practice. Drawing on Bourdieu and related work, it highlights how research is structured by social networks, resource flows, and power differentials among funders, administrators, policymakers, researchers, and communities. The literature on the neoliberal university points to marketization, stratification, and metric-driven evaluation (e.g., publications, impact factors, grant dollars) that privilege commodifiable outputs and can disincentivize community-engaged and socially innovative work. The acceleration of publishing and reliance on performance metrics reinforce these dynamics. Extension work and public-good oriented scholarship often fall outside dominant valuation regimes. Despite growing rhetoric around interdisciplinarity and co-authorship, incentives remain uneven and disciplinary norms persist, shaping how collaboration is practiced and rewarded.

Design and setting: Qualitative, two-phase study with researchers at U.S. Carnegie R1 universities working at the Food–Energy–Water (FEW) nexus. Positions included: graduate students/postdocs (GS/PD), grant-funded research scientists (RS), untenured tenure-track faculty (TTF), tenured faculty (TF), and university extension scientists (ES). Sampling and recruitment: Ethics approved by Colorado State University HREC (No. 2279). Participants (n=44) were recruited via professional networks and snowballing, with attention to all five roles and FEW-nexus work. The author avoided prior collaborators. Screening confirmed commitment to collaborative research involving sustained engagement with practitioners and stakeholders. Sample characteristics (Table 1 in paper): Positions: GS/PD=9; RS=9; TTF=7; TF=10; ES=9. Disciplines spanned NSF directorates plus humanities/arts. Demographic breakdowns of race/ethnicity, age, and gender are reported. Data collection: Phase 1 (May–September 2021) conducted 44 virtual interviews (~90 minutes), recorded and transcribed. Interviews probed interdisciplinarity/wicked problems, opportunities, goals, barriers, performance measures, values, risks, stakeholder engagement, and institutional/disciplinary contexts. Phase 2 (December 2021–March 2022) involved a Qualtrics survey where each respondent ranked their top eight challenges and top eight outputs/rewards identified from Phase 1 coding, followed by brief (15–20 minute) validation interviews. Analysis: Transcripts were organized in NVivo 11. Open coding identified patterns, followed by focused coding to refine themes and curate meta-themes. This process yielded the eight most prevalent challenges and eight most prevalent outputs/rewards, later ranked by all respondents. The analysis compared rankings across the five position types to assess how institutional location shapes perceived barriers and valued outputs.

- Institutional position strongly conditions both perceived challenges and valued outputs. - Challenges: - Time: A major barrier for GS/PD and TTF (finite contracts/tenure clock); less salient for TF, ES, and RS relative to other challenges. - Power dynamics: Seen as moderate-to-significant by all, particularly salient for ES (straddling campus and community) and for more vulnerable groups (GS/PD, TTF). - Funding structures: Constraining for RS (and other precarious roles) whose salaries depend on grants; less constraining for tenured faculty. Risky or politically sensitive questions perceived as harder to fund. - Communication to broader audiences: Personally valued across roles but inadequately rewarded institutionally; GS/PD and TTF face pressure to prioritize disciplinary publications over public engagement. - Building trust: Universally important but time-intensive; TF more able to invest time; ES must balance trust-building with stakeholders’ demand for timely results. - Maintaining partnerships beyond projects: Low priority/challenge for GS/PD and TTF due to short-term incentives and tenure pressure; low challenge for ES because it is incentivized and rewarded in their roles. - Finding collaborators: Less challenging for ES (role incentivizes it) and TF (established networks); more challenging where departments lack collaborative traditions or external ties, notably for TTF and GS/PD. - Having effort fairly counted: A significant obstacle for TTF and, to a lesser degree, GS/PD; interdisciplinary and community-engaged work often falls in gray areas of departmental T&P codes. - Outputs/Rewards: - Peer-reviewed publications: Highly valued by TTF (and GS/PD for job market), less by ES; among TF, Full Professors placed less emphasis than Associates (indicative of promotion dynamics). - Social networks outliving projects: Highly valued by ES (captured in evaluations); less important for GS/PD (short stint limits benefits). - Helping facilitate social change: Rated moderate-to-high importance across all; only ES are explicitly evaluated on it; norms of ‘objectivity’ can discourage others from ‘taking sides.’ - Changing disciplinary/academy practices: Valued as a long-term goal; TTF rank it lower (limited power/time), TF and RS higher (greater legitimacy or liminality), ES feel freer to experiment. - Recognition by disciplinary peers: Wide variation; high for GS/PD and TTF due to evaluation systems; low for ES. - Non-academic communication channels: Lower for TTF (counts little for T&P) and somewhat lower for TF; institutional signals still prioritize academic publishing. - Opportunities for others to have these experiences and discipline porosity: ES value expanding participation and inclusive practices; TF emphasize institutionalizing porosity to sustain inclusivity; RS rank both lower due to job precarity and risk aversion. Overall, what ‘counts’ is shaped less by objective merit and more by norms of communities of practice and institutional location, producing uneven support for solutions-oriented, collaborative scholarship.

The findings directly address the research questions by showing that institutional incentives and disciplinary norms variably support or impede solutions-oriented, collaborative research depending on role. Rather than a uniform environment, higher education comprises multiple research standpoints with distinct power, security, and evaluation regimes that condition practices and outputs. This helps explain why training alone cannot overcome structural disincentives like publish-or-perish metrics, funding pressures, and narrow definitions of impact. The study underscores that disciplines need not be destiny; variability across roles indicates change is possible where incentives align. Extension scientists exemplify a relatively supportive context for community-engaged, solutions-focused work but also highlight campus–field cultural silos. The results caution against generalized prescriptions for interdisciplinary work and suggest asking “for whom?” when proposing to foster collaboration. Practical implications include: rethinking what counts in reviews (relationship building, non-academic communication, co-authored stakeholder outputs); using multi-year rolling averages in evaluations to reflect long time horizons; creating institutionally embedded roles spanning campus and community; intentionally funding network-building; and signaling support for wicked-problem scholarship during recruitment and onboarding. These steps align incentives with desired collaborative practices and broaden legitimate pathways to impact.

This paper contributes an empirical map of how institutional position shapes challenges and rewards for wicked-problems scholarship in R1 universities at the FEW nexus. It shows that even among scholars committed to collaboration, what they can do—and what is valued—depends on role-specific incentives, security, and evaluation standards. The results re-center institutional practices, moving beyond a sole focus on training, and offer actionable recommendations for administrators and PIs to support solutions-oriented, collaborative research across positions. Future research should test generalizability beyond U.S. contexts and FEW topics, examine other wicked-problem domains, and explore interventions that realign incentives and evaluation with public-good outcomes.

- Sample size per group is modest (n per role 7–10), limiting statistical generalizability. - All participants were based in U.S. R1 universities; cross-national differences were not assessed. - All respondents worked at the FEW nexus; findings may differ for other wicked-problem domains (e.g., health, conflict, climate policy). - Self-selection of collaboratively minded researchers may bias perspectives toward collaboration. - Data sharing is restricted due to confidentiality commitments, limiting external reanalysis.