Centre for Leadership in Research Development

Good Practice Guide:

What is this guide?This guide to good practice in the development of research capability is a series of statements about effective ways of appointing and developing a competent and productive research workforce in universities. The statements are expressed as actions that can be taken by executive leaders of research development, such as deputy and pro vice-chancellors, and other senior staff with whom they work to develop research. These include deans, associate deans, heads of school, research group directors and the like. The guide is intended to be a useful resource that informs strategies aimed at enhancing the profile of the personnel available to advance research in universities.

Who developed this guide?This guide was developed and published by the Centre for Leadership in Research Development (CLRD) at the University of the Sunshine Coast (USC). The guide is one of the outcomes of a national workshop conducted by the CLRD at Mooloolaba in May 2012.

The CLRD is a USC centre funded by the Commonwealth for three years under the Collaborative Research Networks (CRN) program. Its purpose is to develop and provide resources to support research development in universities striving to increase their research intensity. Its main activities are a series of national workshops and production of related good practice guides; development of a handbook for executive leadership of research development; and making contributions to the research development literature with a view to influencing both argument and practice in the field.

This workshop on development of research capability was a gathering of approximately 30 participants comprising deputy and pro vice-chancellors, directors of research, managers of research offices, CRN coordinators and other senior research leaders and managers from most universities that received CRN funding. The names of all participants are listed in the acknowledgements section of this guide.

Why has this guide been produced?This guide has been produced to help universities striving to increase their research intensity, which is a choice a range of institutions are making in response to changes in the Australian and international research environment. The decision to produce the guide is based on three premises. First, that while research development is a ubiquitous challenge, as a practice it needs more attention, including more investigation and engagement with the literature.

Second, that there are two broad categories of action in research development and each of these needs specific consideration. These are development of research capability and research capacity, with capability relating to skills, and capacity relating to institutional settings, such as strategy, policy and systems. Hence the focus of the CLRD’s first national workshop from which this guide is derived.

Finally, that ideas about research development are difficult to put into practice, especially in a coherent and coordinated way across whole institutions. Therefore, well-honed statements of good practice informed by practitioner knowledge and experience, and the body of knowledge in the field, can be a useful resource, especially when intelligently adapted for different environments and stages of institutional development. This is why the third CLRD national workshop was on senior research leadership.

This good practice guide should be read in conjunction with the guide on developing research capacity and the Handbook for Executive Leadership of Research Development, also produced by the CLRD. The good practice guides are comprehensive in scope, but are presented with minimal explanation. The intention is to provide a snapshot of headline approaches that outline the territory and key markers of successful research development. The guides are designed to be accessible ready reckoners that can be pinned to notice boards and used to keep the big picture in focus. They are also likely to be a useful resource for professional development activities.

The handbook is also intended to be accessible and easy to use, but provides a more discursive, evidence-based analysis of the challenges and successful strategies of research development. It is constructed around a set of principles, each of which is amplified by discussion of key elements that explain and justify recommended actions. The handbook also includes vignettes from case studies that provide an insight into the experience of leaders who have succeeded in catalysing significant improvement in their institutions’ research performance. The principles and case studies are linked to a “background briefing” about the findings of international studies concerned with the conditions that enable sustained increases in research performance.

The good practice guides and the handbook are complementary and consistent, and together provide a set of resources that should help senior research leaders to fulfil their roles and build institutional support for their work.

develoPinG research caPability

Development of

Early Career Researchers

Appointment of

Capable Researchers

Development of

Mid Career Researchers

Appointment of

Senior Researchers

The institution’s strategic research professors policy complements internal research development processes and has a clear focus on recruitment of well-established high performers, or mid-career researchers with excellent potential.

This involves deployment of a conscious policy of selective recruitment to bolster designated existing, developing or new areas of research concentration.

In appointing strategic research professors the institution takes into account key factors such as familiarity with Australian conditions for research; maximising opportunities presented by national funding programs; attracting expatriate researchers wishing to return to Australia; and making joint appointments.

This involves the application of selection criteria beyond research track record, and creative use of various national research funding programs. It acknowledges the risks associated with this strategy, particularly around how well appointees may fit into the university. While any effective appointees will challenge the culture and systems of developing institutions, there needs to be strong potential for appointees to establish sound connections with key colleagues and parts of the institution.

The institution strives to appoint strategic research professors in conjunction with other members of research teams, including higher degree by research candidates.

This involves an integrated approach to these appointments, striving to build complementary team roles.

The institution provides the infrastructure and support services required for strategic research professors to perform at their best.

This involves a conscious approach to developing the institutional research settings, such as strategy, policy and systems (research capacity) at the same time as developing research capability.

WHAT IS GOOD PRACTICE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH CAPABILITY?

Centre for Leadership in Research Development

Good Practice Guide: develoPinG research caPability

The following statements are a distillation of good practice in the development of research capability as produced through the processes of the national workshop conducted by the CLRD in May 2012. They are presented in four sections representing key aspects of the appointment and development of a university’s research workforce.

The university’s explicit commitment to recruitment and development of capable researchers is reflected in its highest level planning and budget documents.

This involves the institution going to great lengths to employ the highest quality researchers available to it. Strategies may include extensive use of networks, tracking emerging talent, using national recruitment mechanisms, and hosting visiting scholars and talented prospective applicants.

Selection criteria for academic positions include elements concerned with the research leadership potential of candidates, including capabilities related to collaboration, strategic orientation, innovative thinking, and research student supervision.

This involves extending the expectations of academic appointments beyond excellent teaching and research track records to possession of wider scholarly, leadership and entrepreneurial capabilities. This is intended to enhance institutional stocks of academic staff willing and able to lead change processes and take their universities to significantly higher levels of research intensity.

Advertisements for academic positions stress the importance of research track records.

This involves ensuring statements of duties and selection criteria for all academic position descriptions include specific reference to excellent research performance as measured by external grant income, weighted publications, numbers and completions of higher degree by research candidates, citation indices, and high level collaborations.

The institution requires that an independent researcher or a research centre director is a member of all academic selection panels and that all panel decisions are reviewed by a small central committee.

This involves active central participation in all academic appointments to ensure the largest institutional resource—staff time—is better harnessed to support the university’s research effort. It is intended to maximise the appointment of researchers whose interests match, or can be adapted to, areas of institutional research strength.

The institution has a research development scheme whereby a limited number of research-focused staff are recruited annually to tenure-track positions in established, performing research teams.

This involves targeted recruitment of emerging high quality researchers whose research interests match, or can be adapted to match, areas in which the university has successful research teams. These recruits are provided with more time and resources than usual to advance their research in a new environment, but are still expected to do some teaching and contribute to service and administration. They are expected to meet specific research KPIs within a set period of time while increasing their teaching and other normal academic duties over the period. If successful, they gain ongoing employment, or at least a substantial contract. The critical requirement is that they become valuable, fully integrated members of the continuingly successful research team to which they were appointed.

The institution provides academic induction for early career academics, and makes it a condition that they prepare and maintain a career development plan, including a specific research career development component.

This involves design and implementation of an institutional system that supports individual planning in relation to career milestones that are directly linked to the university’s research development strategy. This requires strong induction into the academic practices of the university and its strategic goals for developing its academic profile, performance and culture.

The institution’s performance planning and review processes involve research KPIs for early career academics aligned with institutional research expectations, progress against which influences access to future support.

This involves establishment of direct links between the measured work performance of early career academics and achievement of the university’s research development goals. It provides powerful messages and incentives for aligning individual research interests with institutional research strategy. It also highlights expectations that line managers, such as heads of school and directors of research centres, work pro-actively to develop the university’s research workforce.

The institution celebrates the research performance milestones of early career academics through its academic recognition and reward system.

This involves conscious use of institutional awards, professional leave and academic promotion to accelerate career development for academic staff who successfully align their research interests with institutional research strategy.

The institution’s policy on research groups and centres creates the expectation that a proportion of early career academics will be a key part of all designated groups and centres.

This involves explicit expectations that research centre directors adopt systematic approaches to inducting early career academics into the traditions and practices of high quality research, and aligning their work with the institutional research strategy sand the centre’s objectives.

The institution has a professional approach to its system for mentoring the research development of early career academics, including effective use of validated processes and resources.

This involves careful selection of mentors and coaches, provision of professional development for mentors and coaches, and measurement of outcomes of mentoring and coaching against institutional KPIs for research development.

The institution has a clear definition of mid-career researcher based on norms related to research outputs and outcomes.

This involves deployment of carefully calibrated statements of expectation of research performance, expressed both qualitatively and quantitatively, and adjusted for broad discipline areas, related to academic levels. Further, it involves consistent application of these across the university and over time, including for the public definition of categories such as mid-career researcher.

The institution has a clear definition of research leadership based on the principles and practices of effective academic leadership.

This involves deployment of statements of research leadership principles and practices endorsed at the highest levels of the university.

The institution has a workload allocation policy consistent with research career development.

This involves deployment of an academic workload system that is weighted for stages of career development and is explicit about expectations in relation to research outcomes and outputs.

The institution establishes a mid-career researcher program designed to develop research leadership capabilities.

This involves a positive choice by the institution to invest research development resources in professional development aimed at building-up research leadership capabilities, not compensating for previous under-performance in research.

Program participants are selected against strict criteria related to research outputs and outcomes, and demonstrated leadership potential, relative to opportunity.

This involves deliberate investment in the professional development of performing mid career researchers rather than spreading scarce resources across a wider cohort with mixed research track records.

Program participants are nominated by line managers and may not self-nominate.

This involves the exercise of judgement on the part of senior research leaders and the willingness to explain their decisions.

The institution has clear criteria for promotion, and pro-active line management processes related to career development and performance management, that accommodate career interruptions such as parental leave.

This involves a strong institutional commitment to the deployment of weighted criteria.

The content of the program focuses on developing the capability to help increase the research outputs and outcomes of other researchers, individually and collectively.

This involves promotion of the idea that the key role of research leaders is to help build the research track records of other researchers.

Implementation of Good PracticeIt is acknowledged that what is perceived to be good practice is not always easy to implement and that there are many environmental factors that impose constraints. It is also acknowledged that as an area of practice research development is a contested field. As in most challenging enterprises, judgement has to be exercised. The practices advocated in this guide are offered as contributions to the advancement of research development in full recognition of the institutional limits that shape the ways in which they can be implemented.

Centre for Leadership in Research Development

Good Practice Guide: develoPinG research caPability

Executive Projects UnitUniversity of the Sunshine Coast

Tel: 07 5459 4470 | Fax: 07 5430 1177 | Web: www.usc.edu.auCRICOS Provider Number: 01595D

Key ReferencesHazelkorn, E. (2005) University Research Management: Developing Research in New Institutions, Paris: OECD Publishing.

Hazelkorn, E. (2009). “Institutional Mission vs Policy Constraint?” Higher Education Management and Policy 17.

Ramsden, P. (1998) Learning to Lead in Higher Education, London: Routledge.

Kenna, R. and B. Berche (2011). “Critical masses for academic research groups and consequences for higher education research policy and management.” Higher Education Management and Policy 23(3).

Bland, C.J. and Ruffin, M.T. (1992) “Characteristics of a productive research environment: Literature review”, Academic Medicine Vol. 67: 385-97.

Bland, C.J. Center, B.A. Finstad, D.A. Risbey, K.R. and Staples, J.G. (2005) “A Theoretical, Practical, Predictive Model of Faculty and Department Research Productivity”, Academic Medicine Vol. 80: 225-237.

Bland, C.J. Weber-Main, A.M. Lund, S.M. and Finstad, D.A (2005). The research productive department: strategies from departments that excel, Boston, MA: Anker.

Billot, J. (2010). “The changing research context: implications for leadership.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 33(1): 37-46.

Molfese, V., L. Chronister, et al. (2008). “Voice of Experience: The Strategic Planning Process: Applications to Research Universities and Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions.” Journal of Research Administration 39(1): 85-92, 86-88.

Studman, C. and G. N. Tsheko (2007). “Evaluation of Strategies for Building a Research Culture - An Empirical Case Study at an African University.” Journal of Research Administration 38(1): 76-87, 15.

AcknowledgementsThe following participants in the CRN national workshop conducted by the CLRD at Mooloolaba in May 2012 contributed to the development of the good practice statements in this guide:

Ms Lynette Browning, Professor Paul Burnett, Mr Andrew Calder, Professor Grant Daggard, Professor Drew Dawson, Professor Roland De Marco, Ms Marieka Easterley, Professor John Finlay-Jones, Mr Jason Flello, Professor Greg Gass, Dr Darren Gibson, Ms Katrina Hall, Ms Donna Hannan, Professor Philip Hayward, Dr Anna Hutchens, Professor Geraldine Mackenzie, Ms Adrienne McKenzie, Professor Susan Nancarrow, Ms Barbara Palmer, Ms Marisa Parker, Professor Warren Payne, Dr Ksenia Sawczak, Professor Frank Stagnitti, Ms Anne Thoeming, Mr Steve Williams.

This guide was drafted by Don Maconachie, Director of the Centre for Leadership in Research Development. It draws on work by Professor Paul Burnett, who is a member of the CLRD management team.

Positive Research CultureAdjacent is a selection from the research development literature, much of which is based on empirical studies. A key theme in this literature is that strategic action, such as that recommended by this guide, is much more effective in the context of a positive research culture.

But what is research culture and what makes it positive? In the research development literature, a positive research culture generally refers to the practices, modes of organisation and discourses that constitute the normal everyday worlds of researchers. Creating the conditions under which these can be positively charged and have the power to keep lifting research performance seems to be an essential ingredient of sustained research development.

A positive research culture, according to much of the research development literature, is exemplified by:

• common understandings of the values, norms, motivations, work habits, expectations and sanctions of life as a university researcher;

• positive engagement with a discipline/field/profession; its connections with other disciplines; its theories, methodologies, methods and techniques; its national and international leaders; its key outlets and sources of funding; and its end users;

• positive engagement with the institutional systems and processes that support and enable research;

• academic organisational units that have clear directions; are highly interactive and cooperative; have devolved leadership and management responsibilities; have relatively stable memberships; routinely discuss their agreements and disagreements; have a strong work ethic and value effective time management; are open to new ideas and actions; are committed to teaching and service as well as research; and invest in coaching and mentoring.

These practices, modes of organisation and discourses tend to be more prevalent (but by no means universal) in research intensive universities. Less research intensive universities (and probably less research intensive areas of research intensive universities) seem to need to take deliberate steps to develop them. Thus, while the long term success of strategic development of greater research intensity hinges on effective research management processes, such as development of research capability, it also relies on the strengthening of academic cultures.

This activity is supported through the Australian Government’s Collaborative Research Networks (CRN) program. Part of USC’s CRN grant funds the CLRD. Through Professor Paul Burnett, QUT is USC’s partner in the CLRD.