Search results

Researcher development is an important but underexplored topic with implications for knowledge production, graduate education, faculty development and equity in higher education. The purpose of this constructivist instrumental case study was to understand how the process of writing and publishing from qualitative dissertations sparked researcher development among two pre-tenure faculty members in higher education.

Two researchers and seven data sources (i.e. six essays and one dialogue transcript) were used to construct the case. Researchers first inductively and independently coded the data sources. Researchers then collectively used the constant comparative technique (Charmaz, 2014) for data analysis.

Data analysis uncovered an iterative, three-phase process of seeking “better ways” (Evans, 2011) to translate dissertations into publications. This process included (1) recognizing one or more issues in the research design or conveyance of data, (2) rallying in a multitude of ways to seek better ways to address the issue(s) and (3) resolving the issue(s) by following internal voices and finding “better ways”.

Findings offer implications for faculty members’ approaches to mentoring and graduate preparation, and for postdoctoral and early career scholars’ agentic approaches to publishing, teaching and reflecting on one’s own researcher development.

This paper represents a written, expanded, version of a keynote address presented at the Vitae Researcher Development International Conference, at the midland Hotel, Manchester, UK, in September 2011. It is intended both to contribute towards defining researcher development as a field of research and scholarship, and to motivate those with an interest in the field to go beyond mere description and to incorporate clarity, rigour and analytical depth into their work. Its specific objective is to propose a research agenda for researcher development and to present the case for this agenda.

This is an analytical and conceptual paper. It presents the author's subjective views, illustrated, where appropriate, with examples of the author's conceptual and theoretical work. These underpin the research agenda for the field of researcher development.

There are no “findings” as such, only the author's perspective and observation that, as an emerging field of research and scholarship, researcher development must follow the path of academic rigour (e.g. analytical depth, conceptual clarity, definitional precision, and the development of theory and theoretical perspectives) if it is to achieve credibility within the academic community. The field also needs to widen its focus, it is argued, reflecting a broad interpretation of the concept of researcher development.

This is the first paper dedicated to an attempt to define the field. Its value also lies in its definitions and conceptualisations of researcher development, and its presentation of a taxonomy that deconstructs researcher development, revealing it to be multidimensional.

The literature demonstrates how the environment for and value of research is changing. The purpose of this paper is to explore the narratives of 30 UK researchers and academics to consider how they learned about the nature and value of research through the researcher development process and within this broader context of change.

A biographical‐narrative approach is adopted, emphasising subjective experience and meaning and how this is shaped by wider social structures.

Respondents' stories highlight the continued informality of much of the development process and how a lack of systematic support can leave much to chance, potentially undermining future views of professional development. Data from respondents across generations also enable examination of some of the changes that have taken place over time in the higher education (HE) environment and the impact this has had on individuals' understanding of research. In particular, changes such as the introduction of the Research Assessment Exercise/Research Excellence Framework appear to have had a significant – and not entirely positive – shaping influence on how individuals perceive, and experience, research and its aims, leading to an emphasis on outputs over knowledge building.

A biographical‐narrative approach necessarily involves a smaller sample, nevertheless, shared themes were generated by this size of sample and inferences can be drawn.

Despite increased emphasis on research and publishing in the UK, these stories across generations suggest that training and development for researchers often remain very informal, with much left to chance. A more overt approach to researcher development, such as through a “scaffolded” learning process, in which an experienced colleague guides development activities, could help to avoid negative early experiences and increase the likelihood that individuals will develop their own sense of a “culture of developmentalism”.

Focusing on what individuals learn about the nature and value of research as they go through the development process adds to our understanding of researcher development and how this is situated within the wider HE context. Data from respondents across generations equally enable examination of some of the changes that have taken place over time, and how these re‐shape researcher development.

This paper aims to share reflections on a collaborative researcher development initiative in Malaysia – the Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC) series. Although the immediate focus is on graduate students, the intention is to trigger wider discussions of researcher development theory in the context of policy and practice in the region.

The paper takes a reflection-on-action approach. Reflecting on experience and sharing the lessons learned in a variety of contexts is vital for the development of this emerging field.

Introducing researcher development programs requires careful consideration of the social, institutional and practical contexts in which it takes place. Although transformation of the field is a long-term process, this process can start with small intentional practices.

The analyses and recommendations arising from the BREC experience are context-specific and therefore cannot be generalised. However, the paper offers guidance for other researcher development initiatives, especially in contexts where the field is not well established.

Deliberately designed practices, such as including a broad range of researchers and creating a safe space for active engagement in developmental activities, can have a positive impact on participant’s researcher identities, self-confidence and sense of belonging.

Policymakers are encouraged to consider a more inclusive notion of researcher development, focussing both on the product and the process of doctoral education.

Documenting and sharing reflections of a researcher development initiative in a “developing country” context allows for the comparing and contrasting of experiences in other settings.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the use of a framework and planner for researcher development introduced into the United Kingdom in 2010 by Vitae: an organisation whose purpose is to support the development of UK researchers.

Qualitative and quantitative data from two cohorts participating in an accredited researcher development course designed and delivered by the Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement at the University of Strathclyde were analysed.

Participants reported that the Vitae Researcher Development Framework (RDF) personal development planner (PDP) was useful in facilitating career development. Most found it relatively easy to use once initial perceptions of the tool as being overly detailed and complex were overcome. In addition, some technical problems with the software were identified. There was great variation in the manner in which the RDF was used (for instance in the number of descriptors selected). Although use was highly individualised, the full range of descriptors was used between the course participants.

The results suggest that the RDF PD planner has great potential in supporting researcher development, provided certain specified conditions are met – in particular the need to ensure individualisation, support, and researcher ownership of the outcomes. Further evaluation is necessary.

This is the first report on the RDF PDP being used in a researcher development course.

The complexities and challenges inherent in research often require collaborative rather than solitary or team‐based forms of working. This paper seeks to open new perspectives onto the nature of collaborative research and onto strategies for developing the capacity of researchers to engage in it.

The paper outlines a speculative model of collaborative working in higher education that is rooted in critical realist perspectives, using it to ground a conceptual analysis of a stage model of expertise for collaborative working taken from the researcher development framework (RDF) developed in the UK by the organisation Vitae.

The paper highlights the contribution that theory can make to the practice of researcher development, drawing out the relevance of personal engagement, professional dialogue and collaborative vehicles to support shared practice in pursuit of mutual goals. In this way, it identifies gaps within the stage model that pertain to relational, disciplinary, situational and other elements. The paper articulates insights for the development of the capacity of researchers for collaborative working that prioritise dialogue that is situated within given contexts for research. The analysis draws out implications for the development of collaborative capacity of such notions as corporate agency and collaborative reach.

This paper articulates a novel approach to conceptualising capacity for collaborative research and offers a theoretical critique of a given descriptor taken from Vitae's RDF. As such it assists in developing the scholarly basis for the field of researcher development.

This article is intended to contribute towards furthering the understanding of researcher development as demonstrated by doctoral students' learning within scholarly communities. The article does this by reporting the findings of a study that explored the students' key learning experiences during their doctoral journey.

The 19 participants were natural science doctoral students from a top‐level research community in Finland. The data were collected through interviews that were qualitatively content analysed.

The participants emphasised the significance of participation, development as a scholar, developing specific research competences as well as learning to balance between doctoral research and other institutional tasks. They situated the key learning experiences in collaborative academic contexts such as research activities, taking courses, and academic meetings. The participants generally perceived their experiences as positive and enhancing.

Significant learning experiences identified by natural science doctoral students themselves are rarely studied. The results of the study reported in this article may be used by doctoral trainers, supervisors and students to create environments that foster students' learning and researcher development through their participation in scholarly communities.

This article reports the development, application and results of a baseline investigation of contract research staff in 2007 in the Medical School at the University of Sheffield which was carried out in order to develop a specifically tailored training and career development programme and allow for future impact evaluation of the scheme. Postdoctoral researchers reported on their perceived skill levels, academic achievements, career motivations and the current research environment. Results indicated that transferable skills related to communication and awareness of the process of research (i.e. the process of acquisition of funding, commercialisation of research outputs) were lacking. Furthermore, these skills were associated with higher publication outputs, and improved with mobility between institutions at postdoctoral level. This paper also describes how the findings from the baseline evaluation were used to develop a programme to address the lower ranking skills and evaluate the impact of the programme.

Depending on their institutional context, for new faculty members to successfully manage their transition from doctoral studies to early career, they must show potential as researchers. The purpose of this study was to learn about supports and barriers to researcher development in new faculty members.

The investigators solicited open-ended responses from early career faculty members (N = 49) in an online survey. Content analysis was used to provide an initial categorization of supports and barriers identified by the participants.

Ten barrier categories (e.g. lack of resources, previous training, lack of mentoring, workload) and eight support categories (e.g. effective research collaborations, supportive university environment, funding) were identified.

Findings were framed with a social cognitive conceptual model, which parallels previous studies in doctoral research training environments and research productivity and builds on our knowledge of early career faculty development. The study was limited in terms of number of participants and online response format.

Practical implications to minimize barriers and enhance supports for new faculty researcher development were identified (also drawing from the conceptual model, SCCT).

Thus, the study has value for university policymakers, administrators, faculty peers, research mentors and assistant professors or doctoral students seeking to develop as researchers.

Change is integral to the concept of development. Research in the development process is therefore implicitly, if not explicitly, directed to achieving change. What is important is how far development researchers see themselves as agents of change. In some cases they are helped by methodologies such as action research and participatory action research (PAR) that have change as integral to the research design. However for qualitative research methods in general there is no necessary connection with change. In fact, for many qualitative methods the aim of the researcher is to have as little impact on the research process and the people being researched as possible. In much ethnographic work, the research scene is to be represented in as “natural” a way as possible. This is very different from the development context where a process of change is assumed to be ongoing, or is encouraged to be so. The role of the researcher in relation to change has become even more marked with the advent of more participatory approaches to development. Research participants are no longer seen as passive objects of research but as active agents in creating their own knowledge and action.