Search results

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 purpose of this paper is to offer a provisional framework for researcher development in contexts where postgraduate research education is developing.

This is a reflective essay. The author draws out lessons from his research education initiatives in India and Malaysia spread over a decade (2003-2013). The lessons are based on favourable and unfavourable processes which affected those initiatives. The processes are then synthesised in two stages, to arrive at a provisional framework.

The framework is presented as a cyclical process blending five focal themes: identity, connections, network, skills and roles. Implementing such a process would require sustained institutional collaboration and a supportive policy environment.

Given the limited experiential basis of this reflective exercise, the framework should be considered provisional in nature. There is a need to discuss and assess the framework in other contexts.

Countries such as India and Malaysia have set ambitious targets for doctoral completion. Well-endowed scholarships have been put in place. However, doctoral programmes are still not yet widely popular. A need exists to direct policy debates towards the kinds of researchers needed and how to develop those kinds of researchers.

The paper presents a first-hand reflective account of the opportunities and constraints of research education in India and Malaysia. The exercise has produced a provisional framework for researcher development that could be adapted and assessed in other contexts.

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.

Professionals in higher education are expected to be informed consumers of knowledge who seek out scholarship, critical evaluators of the applicability of extant knowledge, and contributors who build new knowledge for higher education practice. Despite the understood importance of developing research competencies, many have limited opportunities to develop these skills. This study aims to explore one way individuals develop research competencies: through participation in team-based research experiences.

A longitudinal case study approach was used to investigate what participants in an education research group learn, and how their participation in the group changes the ways in which they think about themselves as researchers and scholars. Four group members participated in two focus group interviews (at the end of the fall 2015 and spring 2016 academic semesters). Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Study participants report gaining knowledge about research, developing an identity as a researcher, and learning about faculty roles. Particular group practices and activities (e.g. full group meetings, subgroup meetings, professional development moments) helped mediate members’ learning and identity development.

Research groups should be considered valuable contexts where teaching and learning take place. By learning – and integrating what we learn – from research group participation, the higher education and student affairs fields may become better able to generate innovative practices and activities that provide students and professionals with opportunities to develop important research competencies.

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.

The academic sphere has in recent years become almost saturated in leadership-related processes, structures and positions. This is often explained through recourse to arguments concerning the pathologies of managerialism and the decline of academic autonomy. And yet one area where leadership-related thinking and development structures have not generally permeated is in relation to core research activities. As a result, thinking about research leadership, especially in relation to self-leadership and the governance of large inter-disciplinary ‘team science’ projects, is emerging as an important debate within academe. This chapter seeks to develop this debate by exploring what research leadership is and why it matters.

In this review paper, the authors are particularly interested in the growth in the scholarly investigation of the efficacy of developmental interventions for doctoral and early career researchers. This paper aims to provide a “State of the Art” overview of the emerging fields of research and suggest areas that command more research.

A foundation of key disseminations relating to the new discipline has become established, and it is the outputs of these that the authors look to first in their review. However, much of the work is reported in the proceedings of two specific conferences, known to the authors and does not appear in database searches, which results in a concentration of research in two specific countries, namely, the UK and Australia. Relatively little is found from database searches, however approached, but the authors also report on this work.

There is a general gap in the depth of the body of work in all areas of literature relating to research on the practice of developing researchers. We have identified specific areas as the most limited in terms of the body of published research including research governance; work life balance; engagement influence and impact training and creativity and innovation training.

There is much work as yet unpublished and the practice of rigorous study and publication is not yet generally embedded in this research discipline.

Without the depth of rigorous and robust findings of research to provide us with evidence of good practice, the emergent discipline will struggle to have integrity in its practice. Continued growth in research in this emergent discipline is essential.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first review of its kind looking at the published research in respect of the development of researchers.

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.

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.