Search results

Based on a review of professional staff (PS), which includes research managers and administrators, in 54 academic publications, I propose a novel definition for this category of staff: ‘degree holding university employees who are primarily responsible for developing, maintaining and changing the social, digital and physical infrastructures that enable education, research and knowledge exchange’. The proposed definition facilitates the development of new research questions that target the level of the organisational fields of higher education and science, to complement research on the university and individual levels. This view supports the study of the contributions of PS to higher education and science. I anticipate that such a broader focus will help to counter and nuance accounts of ‘administrative bloat’ by focusing on how PS as a group shape and are shaped by the organisational fields of higher education and science, rather than dismissing them as superfluous or parasitic.

Research managers and administrators (RMAs) should not be forgotten as part of the professional workforce populating today’s research ecosystems of universities or research institutes, with interactions and contributions that matter (Poli, 2018a). Unfortunately, since they are still often regarded as employees who are neither senior management nor researchers, their role still suffers vagueness and ambiguity (Allen-Collinson, 2009). Consequently, RMAs are still unrecognised and unacknowledged, and often misunderstood as support staff or bureaucrats (Rhoades, 2010). This country-specific case study of Cyprus introduces the readers to the Cypriot research ecosystem, so as to contextualise the landscape within which the Cypriot RMAs operate professionally. After briefly discussing the evolution of the RMA profession in Cyprus and glimpsing at what might be the current Cypriot RMA community, the chapter elaborates on RMA demographics derived from the ‘RMA in Cyprus Questionnaire’, which was formulated based on the RAAAP-3 survey. At its closure, the chapter proposes the establishment of the ‘CyARMA – Cyprus Association of Research Managers and Administrators’, as the body to advocate the standardisation, professionalisation and, more importantly, the recognition of the RMA profession in Cyprus.

Professional associations mark an important step in the development of any profession. Research Management and Administration (RMA) as a profession is still emerging across Europe, thus the relevance of RMA associations is pertinent. These associations operate either specifically at the transnational or international levels or have certain activities linked to both levels. The theory of social constructivism from the field of international relations will be applied in this analysis with a goal to add additional insights on the topic. The results confirm that RMA associations have an outstanding role in enforcing the internationalised culture of their members, however, members in return can also exert influence on their association. Members are also aware that the association is providing a platform for collective actions in policymaking at national, transnational, and international levels. However, time plays a crucial role in social learning for identity and interest formation, as well as in recognizing the role of RMA associations in corporate agency.

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.

The aim of this chapter is to describe a four-type model of organisational structures and to discuss two cases, Embrapa and the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, as well as additional cases at SAM-Research and the centre for shared medical support services established at the University of Bologna.

These cases should help readers understand the importance of designing distinctive, tailored-made support services while keeping these structures flexible for further adaptation under unforeseen changes.

The chapter concludes by stressing the role of institutions to steadily invest in the design of these tailored support structures and in personalised training for their support staff.

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 delves into the evolving identity of professionals within the field of research management and administration (RMA), examining the shifts in their roles and expectations in the changing landscape in higher education. After the introductory section, Section 2 offers a conceptual framework that emphasises identity as a dynamic process rather than a static concept. This framework sheds light on the changing roles and expectations that define the RMA profession. In Section 3, we explore the contextual backdrop of shifting expectations surrounding RMA roles while stressing the importance of recognizing the multiplicity of identities to comprehend the nuances of the RMA profession. Section 4 analyzes empirical data and explore the diverse pathways that lead individuals into the RMA profession. We uncover that a notable proportion of RMAs possess scientific training and research experience and highlight the complexities surrounding the identity of RMAs with doctoral training (DRMAs). Lastly, Section 5 discusses key observations that yield valuable insights for future research on the evolving professional identity of RMAs. We emphasise that, through self-exploration and introspection, practitioners in the field can contribute to a deeper understanding of their roles and actively shape their professional identity.

This study examines how leaders’ narcissistic rivalry (LNR) affects the in-role performance (IRP) and proactive customer service performance (PCSP) of employees in the hospitality industry. Specifically, this study investigates the mediating role of psychological distress and the moderating role of locus of control (LOC) in the aforementioned relationships.

This study administered a multi-wave, multi-source questionnaire survey with 323 employees working in 11 full-service hotels in China. Statistical analyses were performed using the PROCESS macro in SPSS 26 software and structural equation modeling using Mplus 8.3 software.

The authors' results suggest that LNR can negatively affect hospitality employees’ IRP and PCSP and that these relationships are mediated by psychological distress. Additionally, the impact of LNR on psychological distress can be lessened by internal LOC.

This study contributes to the literature on leader narcissism by investigating how LNR affects IRP and PCSP among hospitality employees. Drawing on conservation of resources theory, this study also identifies a novel mediating mechanism (psychological distress) connecting LNR to hospitality employees’ service outcomes. Furthermore, this study reveals the moderating role of LOC in the relationship between LNR and psychological distress.

The aim of this paper is to explore the stakeholder exclusion practices of responsible leaders.

An interpretive multiple case analyses of seven responsibly led organisations was employed. Twenty-two qualitative interviews were undertaken to investigate and understand perceptions and practice of responsible leaders and their approach to stakeholder inclusion and exclusion.

The findings revealed new and surprising insights where responsible leaders compromised their espoused values of inclusivity through the application of a personal bias, resulting in the exclusion of certain stakeholders. This exclusivity practice focused on the informal evaluation of potential stakeholders’ values, and where they did not align with those of the responsible leader, these stakeholders were excluded from participation with the organisation. This resulted in the creation and continuity of a culture of shared moral purpose across the organisation.

This study focussed on responsible leader-led organisations, so the next stage of the research will include mainstream organisations (i.e. without explicit responsible leadership) to examine how personal values bias affects stakeholder selection in a wider setting.

The findings suggest that reflexive practice and critically appraising management methods in normative leadership approaches may lead to improvements in diversity management.

This paper presents original empirical data challenging current perceptions of responsible leader inclusivity practices and indicates areas of leadership development that may need to be addressed.