susi poli on behalf of the earma professional development working group
TRANSCRIPT
Susi Poli on behalf of the EARMA Professional Development
Working Group
Contents
Overview of the theory around research management (RM) and main issues arising from the body of literature
Professionals in HE and who the blended professionals are
Dealing with definitions of research managers (RMs), with the array of positions/tasks and with a minimum set of requirements
Other tricky concepts: working spaces and academic/cultural capital
RMs and all the other professional groups Issues of recognition of role and contribution to research
The theoretical frameworkProfessionals in HE
HE Professionals can be categorized on the basis of their approach with existing structures and of attitude to respect boundaries among functions and roles
bounded: old style-professionals, shaped around the “definition of own role in terms of maintaining well-defined processes as well as reluctant to deviate from core functions”;
cross-boundary: are performers using “boundaries to construct and modify their identities … actively work across a number of locales to contribute to institutional capacity building”;
unbounded: are those showing “a sense of being keyed into networks that facilitate the exchange of information and intelligence that can be invested in the institution … acting as a pathfinder”;
blended: have “an ability to work in ambiguous space between professional and academic domains … actively using a mixed background to advantage” (Whitchurch, 2006).
The theoretical frameworkWho the blended professionals are
Blended professionals are hybrid or multi-professional identities, to stress their blend of profiles, both of academia and management; so they appear as those neither part of the senior management team nor of the research staff (Whitchurch, 2008)
They have been recruited through “dedicated appointments that span both professional and academic domains” (Whitchurch, 2008b)
Not necessarily PhD holders, but individuals with academic credentials, such as master’s and doctoral qualifications, performing quasi-academic functions coupled with the possibility of moving into an academic management role (Whitchurch, 2008a)
The theoretical framework Who RMs are and array of positions and tasks
The array of RM roles seems as much wide as before and positions range from those traditional: research contract officer to outreach programme coordinator; from enterprise officer to information development officer; from national research programmes officer to the EU and regional one, from training officer, so on (Bushaway, 2003)
To the newer ones, met in today’s UK Higher Education (HE) job market, that include: research facilitator, doctoral funding development manager, researcher training & development manager, so on
The theoretical framework The minimum set of requirements for RMs
A minimum set of requirements for RMs should include: - research skills, the laboratory environment and practice, ICT for research, E-search, introduction into the unit and the wider university, pricing research, working in a research group, IP, setting research goals and measuring attainment, writing successful grants, research results, writing up, contracting; - non-research skills, presentation, writing for publication, setting deadlines, PM, team-playing in research, personal initiative-taking, communication and interpersonal skills (Bushaway, 2003)
The theoretical framework Working spaces where RMs perform and interact
Working spaces may be seen as inhabited by ambiguity with possibilities for boundary-crossing and fluidity of identity (Allen-Collinson, 2009).
Third Spaces of Collaboration are populated by multi-professional teams working together on long/short-term projects and are frequently characterized by a common spoken language (Whitchurch, 2008a); it seems a fruitful combination of expertise, from the academic and the professional side, aiming to achieve institutional goals
The shifting arena as the shared space of tension, where RM crosses into the academic domain. Reason of such a tension is that research, for its own definition, is intricately associated with academics, so that such a space comes to be the one in which all the tensions and struggles come up with evidence. But an increased understanding of this space could enhance collaboration and maximize effort and outputs (Shelley, 2009)
The theoretical framework Dealing with academic and cultural capital
Academic capital tells of RMs’ contribution to research and, more often, lies on the evidence that they are more academically qualified (with PhD or post-doc awards) than their counterpart academics (Allen-Collinson, 2009)
And just academic capital seems to belong more to new RMs (to mark the difference between traditional and new RMs) because typically trained as PhDs in the fields in which they work and so more skilled once involved in planning/execution of research projects (Schuetzenmeister, 2010)
The theoretical framework Dealing with academic and cultural capital
Shared research in the shifting arenas means production of cultural capital for academics and RMs
RMs’ cultural capital stands for accumulation and value of the research support capital that they hold
So that credibility and recognition of contribution to research lie (not on the title) but rather on accumulation of such cultural capital, namely their own form of managing the research activity, influenced by the local cultural context and the broader policy research context of HE (Shelley, 2009)
The theoretical frameworkRelationships with other professional groups
Issues of “moral exclusion” for RMs that, in some cases, seem to be invisible professionals (no recognition of contribution, role, over-qualification, so on)
Sometimes they have been marked as “others” by academics and, among negative labels, frequently named support or non-academic staff (Shelley, 2009)
But issues of tension come up not only with academics in the shifting arenas, but also with other administrators and professional groups in HE
RMs deemed as “othered” by colleagues and perceived as snobby people (Allen-Collinson, 2009)
The theoretical frameworkIssues of recognition of role and contribution to research
Over-qualification, academic and cultural capital, all issues impacting on recognition of contribution to research (Shelley, 2009)
What is going on about recognition across Europe: the Report on the Project to Create a Professional Development Framework for Research Managers and Administrators by ARMA (UK), other associations have shaped own frameworks, f.e. Vitae UK and its Researcher Development Framework or AUA UK and the Continuous Professional Development Framework
Research leadership and research management (LFHE tender ): “Investigating ‘Research Leadership’ in the context of a changing research landscape: a scoping study”
Bibliography Allen-Collinson, J. (2009). "Negative 'marking'? University research
administrators and contestation of moral exclusion." Studies in Higher Education 34(8): 941-954.
Bushaway, R.W. (2003). Managing Research. Open University Press Hockey, J. and J. Allen-Collinson (2009). "Occupational knowledge and
practice amongst UK university research administrators." Higher Education Quarterly 63(2): 141-159.
Schuetzenmeister, F. (2010), “University Research Management: An Exploratory Literature Review”, European Union Center of Excellence, University of California, Berkeley, Institute of European Studies
Shelley, L. (2009). "Research managers uncovered - Changing roles and 'shifting arenas' in the academy." Higher Education Quarterly, 64(1), pp. 41-64.
Whitchurch, C. (2008a). "Shifting Identities and Blurring Boundaries: The Emergence of Third Space Professionals in UK Higher Education". Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), pp. 377-396.
Whitchurch, C. (2008b). Professional Managers in UK Higher Education: Preparing for Complex Futures. Final Report. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (www.lfhe.ac.uk/publications/research.html).
Thank you for attention and all comments welcome
Pleased to keep talking about these issues
Who we are and what we
need?Summary of questionnaire
Kristel ToomTallinn University, Estonia
Contents
Results of Questionnaire
Purpose
Respondents
Expectations
Professional Development WG
Report
Plans for next year
Why Questionnaire?
Professional Development WG 2011
WG goals: Training Certification
Need to know what members expect
To get input and
…to map needs
… to start with the PD framework
About the Questionnaire
The questionnaire was sent out to all members in November 2011
…and later to other professionals
Web Questionnaire
39 correct responses
You still have possibility to participate!
Responses by CountryUK (26%)Estonia (13%)Spain (8%)Ireland (8%)Germany (8%)Denmark NetherlandsNorwayPortugalUSKosovoSwitzerlandSloveniaItaly Finland Czech RepublicAustria
Membership Status of Respondents
Status Period
Results
49% individual31% institutional21% non-members
38% members since 2011
General Information of Respondents
51% 49%
Gender Age
✓ 28%
3%
Results
Level of Education
Mainly in fields of natural/biosciences 15 and management/economics14
46% have master’s degree
Unfortunately we didn’t ask experience in research…
Results
Nature of WorkPosition Areas
☐
Position doesn’t show the scope of the work!
Results
Years of Experience
The majority of more experienced professionals!
(Sphinx moth)
Results
Expected Events for Professional Development
Annual Conferences (65%)
Working Group Meetings (23%)
Regular Trainings (21%)
Expert Meetings (16%)
Certificate Trainings (15%)
Professional Events (13%)
E-learning (11%)
Country Visits (9%)
44% attend professional trainings on regular basismainly organised by professional associations
The majority have no preference in where trainings take place
72% – organisation has a positive attitude to RM trainings88% – possibly receive resource for participating
Results
Expected Areas of Trainings
Research Management (27%)
Research Policy (17%)
Project Coordinating (14%)
Cooperation with SMEs (13%)
Funding Opportunities (12%)
Full Costing (12%)
Financial Reporting (11%)
Analysing Research Performance (10%)
Auditing (9%)
Project Writing (9%)
Contracting (8%)
Results
How long should a training last?
2 days (44%)
1 week (13%)
1 day (10%)
1 month (3%)
1 year (3%)
Depends on training and location
Results
Regional Groups
Attend (92%) Regularly (46%) Occasionally (46%)
Depends (8%)
Idea for future developments!
Results
We asked how people would feel about EARMA regional groups idea
The response vas very positive
Professional Certification System
62% has no certification system in their country
28% don’t know
10% have
Importance
very important
Results
How important you consider development of a professional certification system for research managers?
Purpose of Membership
“It is a great organization”
“To share experience and expertise, to exchange practices, to compare my way of working and thinking about the role with others, to participate in WGs, to explore the filed of research management more in depth.”
“Networking and exchanging information with peers. I also hope that EARMA will develop the training offer to research management offices. I think there is a lack in research policy and research management training (most trainings available concentrate on funding programmes) and I hope EARMA will develop these trainings.”
“It is the reference association for the profession at European level.”
“I think it is a good idea to have a strong European Network for Research Administrators who can influence the EC and build up good research support.”
“Networking…”
Professional Development
Working GroupReport and Future Plans
Kristel ToomTallinn University, Estonia
Action Plan QUESTIONNAIREQUESTIONNAIRE
ANALYSISANALYSIS
SKILLSLEVELSSKILLSLEVELS
LEARNING OUTCOMESLEARNING OUTCOMES
LIST OF TRAINERS, CATEGORIES
LIST OF TRAINERS, CATEGORIES
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING
FRAMEWORKS
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING
FRAMEWORKS
LIST OF TRAINING COURSES
LIST OF TRAINING COURSES
CALENDER OF TRAINING COURSES
CALENDER OF TRAINING COURSES
ORGANISING TRAINING COURSES
ORGANISING TRAINING COURSES
EVALUATION OF TRAINERsEVALUATION OF TRAINERs
FEEDBACKFEEDBACK
DESCRIPTION OF MODULESDESCRIPTION OF MODULES
TRAINING PROGRAM FRAMEWORK FOR EARMATRAINING PROGRAM FRAMEWORK FOR EARMA
INTERVIEWS
Existing frameworks, literature and ideas
Andersen, J. (2011). Global Professional Development: SRA AC: Montreal
ARMA (2011) A Professional Development Framework for Research Managers and Administrators http://www.arma.ac.uk/pdf/overview.xhtml
Bushaway, R.W. (2003) Managing Research, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Kulakowski, E.C. & Chronister, L.U. (Eds.). (2006). Research administration and management. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publisher.
Schlesinger, P. (2011). Global professional development – a US Perspective: SRA AC: Montreal
UniSA (2011) Fundamentals in World-class Research Administration
Training Modules
8 modules
3 levels Administratin
g Management Leadership
PROJECT PRE-
AWARD
PROJECT PRE-
AWARD
PROJECT POST-
AWARD
PROJECT POST-
AWARD
REGIONAL RESEARCH
LAND-SCAPE
REGIONAL RESEARCH
LAND-SCAPE
TECHNO-LOGY
TRANSFER
TECHNO-LOGY
TRANSFER
FINANCIAL MANA-
GEMENT
FINANCIAL MANA-
GEMENT RESEARCH POLICY
RESEARCH POLICY
POST-GRADUATE STUDENTS
POST-GRADUATE STUDENTS
BASIC(BEGINNER
INTRO-DUCTION)
BASIC(BEGINNER
INTRO-DUCTION)
Developing Professional Development Framework for EARMA
Professional Development matrix is based on
Results of the Questionnaire
Existing Frameworks
Literature
Own Experience
Our first unfinished version of PDF reflects
analysis of existing frameworks and literature!
Relation with other issues
Financial Issues
Legal Issues
Academic Affairs
Marketing
Communication
Statistics
Information dissemination
Personnel issues
…
RMA
General Skills/Attributes
Language skills
Team/networking
Computing
Time/Self Management
Critical Thinking
Problem-solving
Communication
Flexibility
…
René Magritte“The Son of Man” 1964
Integrity
Responsibility
Patience
Helpfulness
Empathy
Commitment
Sense of Humor
…
Thank you for your attention!
On behalf of theEARMA Professional Development
Working Group