Researcher development study: public report

Findings from an international project

Read the full report here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17158658

Working in partnership with Vitae we publish findings from a study of 14 UK and Australian universities exploring strategies, structures, resourcing, delivery, evaluation and challenges in the field of researcher development.

Collectively, these universities support around 40,000 research students and staff, yet operate their development programmes with central teams averaging fewer than seven full-time equivalent staff. This striking finding from the survey illustrates the resource challenges facing researcher development in the UK and Australian higher education sectors.

5 UK universities and 9 Australian universities participated in the project, which involved:

• a specialist online survey which covered strategy, structures, programmes and delivery, evaluation, engagement and challenges and opportunities;
• a bespoke institutional report and supporting analysis;
• a one-to-one consultation with our team to discuss the institutional context and report; and
• attendance at virtual good practice sharing events.

Key findings

Key findings include:

• the study illustrates the importance and challenges of effective evaluation;
• coverage of development topics is broadest for personal effectiveness and professional skills and for research students and staff; provision of researcher development opportunities on these topics for professional and technical staff is generally more limited;
• the central researcher development team and doctoral academy lead on operational delivery and most activity is delivered through synchronous sessions; and
• challenges and opportunities for the next five years include training needs relating to AI, as well as its use in training delivery, and collaboration with other institutions.

Additionally, the study indicated that:

• internal motivating factors for researcher development are similar between Australia and the UK, particularly alignment with institutional strategy and values, the intrinsic value of researcher development activities and aiming to improve research culture. However, understandably external motivations and influential third parties vary by country and include national initiatives relating to research assessment and guidance or standards for researcher development;
• in both Australia and the UK, research committees are responsible for the governance of the researcher development strategy. However, only a minority of institutions have a formal researcher development strategy, and this is often split across a number of different documents;
• institutions vary significantly in the number of institutional units which are described as having primary responsibility for researcher development strategy;
• central researcher development roles are characterised by widespread use of fractional FTE. Many staff members engage in researcher development activities as part of broader roles, rather than being fully dedicated to these activities. This is a known feature of how researcher development activity is delivered;
• there is no obvious relationship between the size of an institution’s researcher community and its level of central researcher development staff resourcing; and
• key barriers to researcher engagement in development activities are lack of recognition in workload and lack of awareness.

Future considerations

Based on the findings of this project, both from the survey and from extensive and sustained engagement with the participating institutions throughout the study, eight key areas have been identified for future consideration, potential sector-wide action and for review through a future researcher development survey.
These areas for action include:

1. developing robust and effective approaches to evaluation, including longitudinal evaluation;
2. exploring change over time in the breadth of researcher development opportunities offered to professional and technical staff;
3. exploring options for optimising the balance of synchronous and asynchronous delivery, and between online and in-person delivery, and how these vary for different audiences;
4. exploring additional opportunities for sharing good practice. In Australia this includes interest in developing a national researcher development framework;
5. considering how AI will influence researcher development, both as an emerging area of development need and as a tool for delivery;
6. deepening understanding of researcher development as a product of, and influence on, research culture and by extension institutional culture;
7. considering the highly fractional nature of researcher development activities within people’s roles; and
8. developing further areas for collaboration, including access to shared training and resources.

You can also check out our infographic for a high-level overview of some of the key findings from the project.

Please click the image to view a larger version.