Search results

This chapter examines various definitions and perceptions of Research Management and Administration (RMA) from individuals both from within and outside the profession to gain a wider understanding of this field. These definitions and perceptions are expected to trigger reflections on where the boundaries of the profession are more likely to be.

To do so, the authors utilise a mixed method that begins with a discussion of different definitions of RMA. Next, we move from conceptualisation to action and engage the reader by presenting empirical insights from an analysis of specific training programmes within RMA, shedding light on the profession’s distinctive features from an insider’s perspective. Lastly, we delve into the case study of the project foRMAtion, a training program that introduces RMAs as the ‘Professionals at the Interface of Science.’ This case study allows us to explore how individuals outside the RMA profession, such as teachers and students participating in its training courses, perceive and understand RMA.

This chapter explores the results of an international survey (RAAAP-2) to provide global insight into research management and administration (RMA) as a relatively new field of investigation within the area of higher education management (HEM). Building on that extensive survey, the purpose of this chapter is to investigate qualitatively how and why people become and remain research managers and administrators, focussing primarily on their skills, roles, and career paths.

Findings from the analysis confirm that a career in RMA is rarely an intentional choice and can be described as labyrinthine, which could be even compared and contrasted with a concertine academic career described by Whitchurch et al. (2021). While conclusions confirm the gender implications of the profession, which is overall highly ‘female’; further conclusion sheds light on RMAs across regions and suggests how this varied ecosystem could even undermine the recognition of RMA as a profession.

Collegiality is the modus operandi of universities. Collegiality is central to academic freedom and scientific quality. In this way, collegiality also contributes to the good functioning of universities’ contribution to society and democracy. In this concluding paper of the special issue on collegiality, we summarize the main findings and takeaways from our collective studies. We summarize the main challenges and contestations to collegiality and to universities, but also document lines of resistance, activation, and maintenance. We depict varieties of collegiality and conclude by emphasizing that future research needs to be based on an appreciation of this variation. We argue that it is essential to incorporate such a variation-sensitive perspective into discussions on academic freedom and scientific quality and highlight themes surfaced by the different studies that remain under-explored in extant literature: institutional trust, field-level studies of collegiality, and collegiality and communication. Finally, we offer some remarks on methodological and theoretical implications of this research and conclude by summarizing our research agenda in a list of themes.

This chapter explores occupational stress in research managers and administrators (RMAs). Data gathered from RMAs in the USA, Great Britain, Europe, Australasia, and Canada through the Research Administrator Stress Perception Survey (RASPerS) are used to examine factors that are known stressors or outcomes from occupational stress. The purpose of RASPerS is to measure and raise awareness about occupational stress and its impact on health behaviour in RMAs. Using descriptive statistics, factors associated with occupational stress including increasing demands, hours worked, anxiety due to competing demands between work and home, and reported self-neglect due to occupational stress are examined. We also explore what RMAs report as being the top motivating factors for remaining in the profession despite high levels of stress.

Awareness of the impact of occupational stress can aid RMAs in maintaining a healthier lifestyle and assist RMA leaders in building work environments that foster employee retention.

The emergence of Research Management and Administration (RMA) is a result of the pressure on academics to secure research funding from external sources, the increasing competition for these funds, as well as the rising requirements of research funders in terms of reporting and compliance with regulations. This is relevant in the case of the current Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (HEU) funded by the European Union (EU) which requires important level of professionalisation of the research support staff on behalf of the applicant institutions. Data management, open science, research ethics and integrity, achieving impact beyond academia and the valorisation of project results can be regarded as non-research specific criteria which have to be met by applicant organisations to secure the highly competitive funding. Meeting these non-specific criteria is not always possible in countries whose performance is lagging behind compared to the Western European competitors in EU-funded programmes, such as Hungary.

Our findings reveal two things. First, research support in Hungary is in its early stage of maturity, similary to many countries in Central and Eastern Europe. In several cases, Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs) do not possess the knowledge necessary to meet the non-research specific criteria even if the knowledge is present at the institution or with other colleagues. Second, due to the continuously increasing participation in EU-funded framework programmes (FPs), the state of research support in Hungary is constantly evolving. There is also willingness to learn and improve capacities, which needs strategic planning, studying others’ examples and their adaptability. Such processes can support the capacity building and professionalisation of research offices not only in Hungary, but in countries of the Central and Eastern European region with a similar maturity level of RMA.

Recent changes in university systems, debates on academic freedom, and changing roles of knowledge in society all point to questions regarding how higher education and research should be governed and the role of scientists and faculty in this. Rationalizations of systems of higher education and research have been accompanied by the questioning and erosion of faculty authority and challenges to academic collegiality. In light of these developments, we see a need for a more conceptually precise discussion about what academic collegiality is, how it is practiced, how collegial forms of governance may be supported or challenged by other forms of governance, and finally, why collegial governance of higher education and research is important.

We see collegiality as an institution of self-governance that includes formal rules and structures for decision-making, normative and cognitive underpinnings of identities and purposes, and specific practices. Studies of collegiality then, need to capture structures and rules as well as identities, norms, purposes and practices. Distinguishing between vertical and horizontal collegiality, we show how they balance and support each other.

Universities are subject to mixed modes of governance related to the many tasks and missions that higher education and research is expected to fulfill. Mixed modes of governance also stem from reforms based on widely held ideals of governance and organization. We examine university reforms and challenges to collegiality through the lenses of three ideal types of governance – collegiality, bureaucracy and enterprise – and combinations thereof.

Research managers and administrators (RMAs) face the invisibility arising from the diversified work and ambiguous boundaries. Some reports pointed out the stress of RMAs. Moreover a long-term career is a critical matter for RMAs to succeed. Thus, this chapter aims to identify the relationship between the long-term career of RMAs and relevant factors. The dataset from Research Administration as a Profession 2 (RAAAP-2) allowed regression analysis considering national and regional differences in the analysis. The analysis included 3,235 respondents. The results indicated that job attraction perceived by RMAs and additional acquisition of academic degrees after engagement were positively and significantly related to the total years of experience. Moreover, the linear mixed models showed that country/regional variation and the total years of experience had a significant link even after controlling the other variables. The findings would highlight the attraction of research management and administration as a profession.

The study discusses the professionalization of academic leadership in Israel by analyzing and comparing two different training programs: the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s (HUJI) program and the CHE-Rothschild program. The HUJI program began in 2016 to train the professoriate to take charge of leadership positions alongside a separate program for administrative staff, while the CHE-Rothschild program was launched in 2019 to train academic leaders, both professors and administrators from universities and colleges nationwide. The analysis reveals two “ideal types” of collegiality: While Model A (exemplified by the HUJI program) bifurcates between the professoriate and administrative staff, Model B (exemplified by the CHE-Rothschild program) binds administrative and academic staff members through course composition, pedagogy, and content. The study suggests a pattern of redefinition of collegiality in academia: we find that while academic hierarchies are maintained (between academic faculty and administrative staff and between universities and colleges), collegiality in academia is being redefined as extending beyond the boundaries of the professoriate and emphasizing a partnership approach to collegial ties.