# data[].attributes.body
"The behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes and norms of our research communities. It influences researchers’ career paths and determines the way that research is conducted and communicated."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tools to support and steward research culture | Royal Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As part of the Changing Expectations programme, the Royal Society recognises the importance of providing tools to help support and steward research culture through a shifting research landscape

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Let's elevate the conversation on Research Culture and co-create practical solutions to shared challenges

# data[].attributes.body
Rationale:

All too often, institutions work disparately on research culture initiatives, when synergy would be far more likely to reduce duplication and achieve positive results. In response to changes in the sector forecasting a growing role for research culture, there has been a drive to create or expand research culture enabling teams.

The Research Culture Enablers Network (RCEN) aims to build on this momentum and unite motivated colleagues in these pivotal roles to gather critical mass around priority areas. By working together, we can improve our thought leadership and be mobilised to respond more strategically to upcoming opportunities to shape the future of research culture for the better.

Ethos:

RCEN has been created as a solutions-focused group designed to exchange, debate, and challenge ideas surrounding research culture, with a view to remove inequities in conversation and engage collaboratively in opportunities to identify gaps, create new knowledge and effect change.

Activities:

Connect with colleagues who have a professional stake in driving research culture agendas within the practical realities of institutions – whether they have 'Research Culture' in their job titles or are directly involved in managing activities to nurture more inclusive and responsible research environments

Contribute to ongoing discourse around barriers and enablers to improving Research Culture and join our collective effort to move challenges forward and standardise best practice

Develop collaborations and joint opportunities to improve our evidence bases and undertake novel research on Research Culture

# data[].attributes.headline
Video: Royal Society Research Culture Explainer

# data[].attributes.subject
Video: Royal Society Research Culture Explainer

# data[].attributes.body
"Researchers are passionate about their work and proud to be part of the research community – they see it as a vocation, not just a job. Culture varies a great deal from place to place, and different individuals have very different experiences, with underrepresented groups experiencing the most challenges. Researchers say that their working culture is best when it is collaborative, inclusive, supportive and creative, when researchers are given time to focus on their research priorities, when leadership is transparent and open, and when individuals have a sense of safety and security."

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Join 100+ colleagues with a professional stake in Research Culture

# data[].attributes.body
Registration Form:

Research Culture Enablers Network (warwick.ac.uk)

Rules:

1. To nurture a dynamic community, members are encouraged to actively participate in network activities. This includes contributing to discussions, sharing insights, and, where possible, attending events

2. Be respectful to other network members

4. Post content relevant to improving Research Culture

5. Only post an item once

6. You may link to, but please do not post copyrighted materials

# data[].attributes.headline
Group: Research Culture Knowledge Exchange 

# data[].attributes.subject
Group: Research Culture Knowledge Exchange 

# data[].attributes.body
A place to re-share and discuss research culture news and views

# data[].attributes.headline
Paper: Creating spaces to develop research culture

# data[].attributes.subject
Paper: Creating spaces to develop research culture

# data[].attributes.body
This paper discusses how academic development teams working with researchers can build meaningful institutional research culture through conceiving of researcher cohorts as members of an organisation-wide community of practice. It focuses on supported development of social media knowledge and skills through a programme that synthesises digital practices, institutional and digital literacies, and identity formations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At the University of Leeds, we believe that all members of our research community play a crucial role in developing and promoting a positive and inclusive research culture. Across the globe, the urgent need for a better Research Culture in Higher Education is widely accepted - but how do you make it happen? This weekly podcast focuses on our ideas, approaches and learning as we contribute to the University's attempt to create a Research Culture in which everyone can thrive. Whether you undertake, lead, fund or benefit from research - these are the conversations to listen to if you want to explore what a positive Research Culture is and why it matters.

Unless specified in the episode shownotes, Research Culture Uncovered © 2023 by Research Culturosity, University of Leeds is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms. Some episodes may be licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0, please check before use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A weekly podcast exploring, what is Research Culture and why does it matter? Whether you undertake, lead, fund or benefit from research - these are the conversations to listen to if you want to explore what a positive Research Culture should be.

# data[].attributes.headline
Paper: Recommendations for empowering early career researchers to improve research culture and practice

# data[].attributes.subject
Paper: Recommendations for empowering early career researchers to improve research culture and practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national center for biotechnology information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Recommendations for empowering early career researchers to improve research culture and practice - PubMed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Early career researchers (ECRs) are important stakeholders leading efforts to catalyze systemic change in research culture and practice. Here, we summarize the outputs from a virtual unconventional conference (unconference), which brought together 54 invited experts from 20 countries with extensive ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: How exactly could REF 2028 evidence Research Culture?

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: How exactly could REF 2028 evidence Research Culture?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Future Research Assessment Programme's initial decision to raise the weighting of the research environment portion of the forthcoming REF in 2028 from 15 per cent to 25 per cent has been welcomed by some, while more cautiously received by others.

When it comes to assessing this now broader category (which will also be renamed People, Culture and Environment), the fact remains that the written statements presenting an institution's research culture will probably only constitute around 20 per cent of the subscore for the 25 per cent weighting. This means most of the assessment will, as in 2021, be based upon indicators drawn from metrics, institutional awards and statistical data, collected in the form of a questionnaire yet to be devised.

While using a questionnaire-style template to collect evidence could simplify the assessment exercise for universities and REF assessment panels, it comes with drawbacks. Larger institutions who can employ more staff to collect and crunch data will have an advantage over smaller institutions who cannot, while the nagging observation remains that picking a few indicators to evidence something as complex as research culture does not do the latter justice.

In fact, a reliance on metrics might hinder the development of a positive research culture. There is an impression among some researchers that the sector's overreliance on metrics is, in fact, one of the things that's wrong with research culture right now. In a survey conducted in 2020, for example, the Wellcome Trust discovered that only 14 per cent of researchers surveyed believed current metrics improved research culture, while a further 43 per cent believed that metrics were held to be more important than research quality itself.

The appearance of the Metric Tide 2 report in December 2022, a follow-up to the influential Metric Tide report of 2015 that advocated for the more responsible use of metrics in research assessment, has moved the debate forward. Metric Tide 2 contains some general suggestions on how to use "data for good" (see p. 33 of the report) when it comes to assessing the health of research ecosystems and culture, but further discussion is needed to work out what specific metrics can be used in practice and how.

So how can the future REF move forward from its 2021 assessment of Research Environment to assess People, Culture and Environment?

What was measured in REF 2021?

Although it isn't the most exciting way to spend an afternoon, looking at the indicators used to determine the Research Environment scores for REF 2021 is a starting point for thinking about how the next REF can measure the quality of the People, Culture and Environment submission in 2028.

Upon first sight, the indicators for something as broad as Research Environment were not what you would expect. Signing up to different concordats was important. Has your institution, for example, signed up to the Concordat on Open Research Data and the Concordat to Support Research Integrity? A simple yes or no sufficed here. It is, of course, easier to sign up to concordats than to commit to their principles and policies in practice, but we'll leave this issue to one side for now.

The awards offered by Advance HE, such Athena Swan or the Race Equality Charter, also appeared as indicators. These awards offer firmer ground than concordats when it comes to assessing an institution's research culture and environment, as each award framework has its own assessment panel that give out gold, silver or bronze badges (and sometimes, no badge at all) depending on the quality of the application and the evidence submitted within.

And how diverse are your sources of research income? The more varied the better, with fourteen different columns of funder subdividing (among others) the royal academies from UK-based charities from government and industrial sources. Although this indicator in 2021 probably told us more about who funded the research rather than the environment in which the research was produced, the situation might well be different in 2027. Funders such as the Wellcome Trust and UKRI are demonstrating an increasing interest in research culture. Grants of research funding in the future will probably be contingent upon the recipient institution demonstrating or committing to improve a positive research culture.

Other indicators collected in 2021 perhaps get us closer to research culture, while some might not feature in the next REF at all. The institution's gender pay-gap and the make-up of its community of research staff, including its ethnicity profile and contractual status (with the higher the percentage on permanent contracts as opposed to fixed-term contracts the better) are understandable statistics to ask for when considering the environment in which research is undertaken.

In terms of more obscure indicators, even seasoned university administrators might never have heard of the Human Resources Excellence in Research Award (HREiR) administered by Vitae, and resort to Google to work out if their institution holds it. Whether a university's place in the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index will remain an indicator is unclear, given the withdrawal of several universities in England and Scotland from the league table.

More of the same for 2028?

What other indicators can the sector provide? REF planners are to consult with the sector on identifying suitable metrics and indicators for the People, Culture and Environment element and will use the definition of research culture outlined by the Royal Society as a starting point. The latter is useful given the competing definitions of research culture out there, so at least university leaders have a definition to work with, even if it is a broad one.

The indicators REF planners are interested in collecting (we're now onto point 44 on page 9 of this document) sounds a lot like what was asked for in 2021, with its mention of open research practices, EDI data, and information on staff career paths and progression. What else can REF planners ask for in an easily answerable questionnaire-type format?

What else could be measured?

As mentioned above, concordats and sector-wide codes of conduct feature heavily in the REF 2021 indicators for Research Environment, but signing up to concordats is not the same as committing to their principles in practice, and here might be an avenue for the collection of data that can help evidence a university's commitment to investing in its people, culture, and environment.

Universities across the UK, for example, have signed the Researcher Development Concordat of 2019 (RDC), that includes the commitment to guarantee every researcher no less than 10 days protected development time per year (or pro rata if part time) to advance their career. Signatories to the RDC report every other year to Universities UK on their progress in delivering upon the RDC's principles and therefore collect data on research staff engagement with training and professional development. A future REF could ask "what percentage of your research staff make use of their 10 days protected development time each year?" Posing such questions will help identify universities that seek to meet their concordat commitments in practice and asks for data universities are generally collecting already.

Similar questions can be posed about other concordats. The Concordat to Support Research Integrity, to take another example, commits a signatory to provide suitable training opportunities surrounding research ethics and integrity for researchers. "What percentage of your research staff have completed training in research ethics and integrity?" could well be another question in the future REF questionnaire. One point to consider here is how such a metric could be accompanied by a sense of how the institution or its people have changed as a result of the training, as attending training in itself is not necessarily evidence that the university and its staff have changed their practices and behaviour.

A further development in the research environment since the last REF is the continued rise of the Résumé for Research and Innovation. More popularly known as the Narrative CV, it is an application format designed to move assessment of researchers away from metrics and outputs to a broader consideration of an applicant's skills and achievements.

UKRI made the Narrative CV compulsory for applicants applying to any of its funding programs where evidence of a researcher's track record is required, so despite criticisms and concerns this initiative is not going away. An item querying the adoption of this format of CV on an institutional or department level could be placed into a questionnaire. Given the central role that the Narrative CV will play in fostering (in UKRI's words) "a more inclusive and supportive research and innovation culture," its inclusion in REF 2028 is to be expected.

What will REF 2028 bring?

REF planners are in a bit of a bind. Asking for more metrics and indicators might mean they can gain a sharper view of research culture in the UK, but the administrative burden on both the universities they wish to assess and their own assessment panels would rise too. If they don't revise the metrics and indicators for a future REF then they risk re-running the same exercise with probably similar results.

If the REF is to make good on its commitment to foreground research culture, then a set of indicators decided upon in the late-2010s will surely have to be revised. We will learn more about the nitty-gritty underlying the assessment of People, Culture and Environment in early 2024 after a sector-wide consultation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How exactly could REF 2028 evidence research culture? | Wonkhe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
REF 2028 will place increased importance on research culture - but how's this going to work in practice? Mark Whelan digs into the nuts and bolts of assessment

# data[].attributes.headline
Project: Action Research on Research Culture 

# data[].attributes.subject
Project: Action Research on Research Culture 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Improving research culture – the standards, values and behaviours of researchers and the research system is a key to improving research and increasing its contribution to society. The Action Research on Research Culture (ARRC) project investigates how changing the recruitment, development and retention of researchers could improve research culture.

# data[].attributes.headline
Project: CARDEA, enabling professionalisation of research management

# data[].attributes.subject
Project: CARDEA, enabling professionalisation of research management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CARDEA is a group (many of us HR Professionals) with a proven track record in the delivery of initiatives to support research staff within our own universities and organisations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We’re transforming research systems and cultures. Ensuring that we have the evidence we need to realise the full potential of research.

# data[].attributes.body
Robert K. Merton, Norman W. Storer (ed.) - The Sociology Of Science: Theoretical And Empirical Investigations : Robert K. Merton : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dear Patron: Please don't scroll past this. The Internet Archive is a nonprofit fighting for universal access to quality information. We build and maintain all our own systems, but we don't charge for access, sell user information, or run ads. Instead, we're powered by online donations averaging about $14. We'd be deeply grateful if you'd join the one in a thousand users that support us financially.

Right now, we have a matching gift campaign that will double the impact of every donation. We understand that not everyone can donate right now, but if you can afford to contribute this Wednesday, we promise it will be put to good use. Our resources are crucial for knowledge lovers everywhere-so if you find all these bits and bytes useful, please pitch in.

Your Donation Will Be Matched! Can You Chip In?
Dear Patron: Please don't scroll past this. Right now we have a matching gift campaign that will double the impact of every donation. We understand that not everyone can give right now, but if you can afford to contribute this Wednesday, we promise it will be put to good use. If you find all these bits and bytes useful, please pitch in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Robert K. Merton, Norman W. Storer (ed.) - The Sociology Of Science: Theoretical And Empirical Investigations : Robert K. Merton : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The exploration of the social conditions that facilitate or retard the search for scientific knowledge has been the major theme of Robert K. Merton's work for...

# data[].attributes.headline
Project: Compound Interest, Celebrating Disabled Scientists

# data[].attributes.subject
Project: Compound Interest, Celebrating Disabled Scientists

# data[].attributes.body
Compound Interest: Spotlight Science: Celebrating disabled scientists (compoundchem.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disabled scientists are still vastly underrepresented in the sciences. With Enable Science, and with the help of a grant from the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Inclusion and Diversity Fund, we’ve produced a series of twelve graphics…

# data[].attributes.headline
Infographic: Royal Society Visions of 2035

# data[].attributes.subject
Infographic: Royal Society Visions of 2035

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Throughout 2017 the Royal Society spoke to over 1000 individuals from across the research community, through 20 events in 15 different locations. Participants included researchers across all career stages in academia, industry and government.

The workshop was designed to engage participants in a conversation about research culture. This allowed the Society to gather ideas about a vision of an ideal future research culture, and how this could be achieved. The first event in the series was run as a full-day conference for ECRs. The insights from this series of workshops has been captured in Research culture: embedding inclusive excellence.

The great success of the workshops has led to the development of an open access pack of resources (see Downloads), which allows individuals to easily run their own workshops, using a simple step-by-step guide.

Visions of 2035 materials

The content and materials developed for these workshops and guidance on how to use them have been made openly accessible.
Explore the materials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
workshop futures changing expectations research culture industry academia government speculative design museum of extraordinary objects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Culture Workshops: Visions of 2035 | Royal Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Through the Visions of 2035 workshops, we are engaging researchers from across all career stages in academia, industry, government. Learn more now.

# data[].attributes.headline
Paper: Towards a critical-conceptual analysis of ‘research culture’

# data[].attributes.subject
Paper: Towards a critical-conceptual analysis of ‘research culture’

# data[].attributes.body
If funders, policymakers, and institutional leaders really wish to change ‘ways of working’ (a phrase repeatedly used in discussions of research culture), they will need to focus assiduously on how political-economic processes in general, and labour relations specifically, produce and constrain research cultures, as well as on their own roles in embedding and transforming these.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: it's time to talk about research culture and the REF

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: it's time to talk about research culture and the REF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In June the four Higher Education Funding Bodies, including Research England, published the initial decisions on the 2028 Research Excellence Framework (REF).

Central to the package of reforms proposed is an increased weighting for the People, Culture and Environment element. The Contribution to Knowledge and Understanding remains the most heavily weighted and will assess a similar volume of research outputs as in REF 2021. We proposed that the assessment of the new People, Culture and Environment element will be based on a tight and structured format mixing quantitative and qualitative evidence, appropriately contextualised.

It was pleasing to see the many positive responses to our proposals and the thoughtful and constructive challenges in some areas. A number of aspects of the REF 2028 proposals are currently the subject of an open consultation, and we are looking forward to considering input on those matters after our current consultation closes in October.

As we have engaged and discussed the proposals with the higher education sector, some issues have been raised that are not covered in the formal consultation. Amongst these are concerns about the People, Culture and Environment element, and the balance of its weighting compared to the Contribution of Knowledge and Understanding element, as well as the extent to which we can develop robust indicators to allow the fair assessment of research environment in the time available. Some have questioned whether it is appropriate or beneficial to include a broader consideration of the research environment in the assessment. We have also heard that there are some specific worries about how institutions may 'game' the proposed approach.

Developing an effective and robust assessment that supports a thriving and healthy research system is our goal, so it is important that we work collectively to respond to these concerns. We will shortly be launching a tender for work to develop outcome-focussed indicators that can be used in the People, Culture and Environment assessment. In doing so, we will not be starting from scratch. This work will build on analyses we undertook and commissioned as part of FRAP, not least the Harnessing the metric tide report. We also know that many universities are already developing indicators to measure progress with their own research culture action plans, and we are keen to draw on this work.

We are committed to developing those indicators in partnership, and extensive engagement will be a core part of the programme. As part of the engagement, we will be testing potential indicators and the assessment approach with universities and panel members to make sure they are verifiable, feasible and that evidence can be collected with minimal burden. While we are confident that a set of reliable indicators can be developed, we may reflect on the relative weighting of the People, Culture and Environment element, depending on the evidence from the work to develop indicators.

In parallel, we will extend our engagement on the approach to research culture and environment in the assessment. We are inviting written comments on this issue specifically and will be convening further roundtables and open web events through the autumn that will feed into further development during 2024. We will be publishing details for this further engagement soon. We want an open and transparent debate and to fully explore the benefits, challenges and trade-offs associated with the current proposals.

We are very keen to hear all perspectives, and as we initiate the debate it is important that we set out our rationale for the changes clearly.

Research in our universities is extraordinary, vibrant and diverse, and spans the length and breadth of the UK. It is delivering breakthrough discoveries and transformational change and this research contributes to our standing in global measures as among the most innovative economies worldwide. But that doesn't mean that our research system is without problems.

A hyper-competitive research environment and the so called 'publish or perish' pressures that exist in academia threaten research excellence. Concerns include undermining future confidence in published research outcomes by encouraging poor research practices and even fraud. The appetite to pursue long-term disruptive research is reduced and a focus on the performance of individual researchers perpetuates hierarchies, rather than supporting the collaborative teams of people in diverse roles needed to advance knowledge.

As a result, many people find the research system an unappealing place to work, and many people with much to offer feel undervalued or excluded. And, because of a focus on traditional measures of research activity, it can be difficult to move back and forth between academic research and other sectors.

These difficulties are a drag on our overall performance and need to be tackled. They are not unique to the UK research system but in addressing them we have a significant opportunity to show leadership globally.

The REF does not necessarily directly cause these challenges. But tackling them and recognising positive research cultures and environments is a key motivation underpinning the proposed changes which aim to look at research excellence in a more holistic and rounded way.

We want to recognise all the outputs of research, not just the publications and documents but also the impacts, research system innovations and, importantly, the skilled people who are at the heart of a thriving research system. This was a key recommendation from the International Advisory Group that was established as part of the Future Research Assessment Programme (FRAP) and is also aligned with the Government's R&D People and Culture Strategy.

The four higher education funding bodies have a shared goal with the research sector to build a healthy and thriving research system that delivers the maximum benefits for society. We look forward to continuing constructive engagement on the future REF to enable us to deliver that goal together.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's time to talk about research culture and the REF | Wonkhe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The recently published proposals for REF 2028 have raised questions about the assessment of research culture and environment. Research England Executive Chair Jessica Corner broaches a sector-wide debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Vitae Researcher Development Framework (RDF) is for you if you are doing a doctorate, are a member of research staff, pursuing an academic career or thinking about applying the skills developed during your PhD in another career.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About the Vitae Researcher Development Framework

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Introducing the Vitae Researcher Development Framework. A structure for continuing professional development (CPD) and personal development planning for PhDs, research staff and academics at all career stages.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: My research culture is better than yours

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: My research culture is better than yours

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
So the FRAP outcomes are finally with us and as expected, the next REF is going to bring a greater focus on research culture.

REF2021's Environment Statements are now REF2028's People, Culture & Environment (PCE) Statements and the weighting has increased from 15 per cent to 25 per cent. The culture aspect will be assessed at both institution and discipline-level using a yet-to-be-developed "framework relating to research culture that will define core data or evidence requirements, while offering some flexibility for HEIs to tailor submissions to their own circumstances and priorities."

This approach has largely been welcomed but perhaps predictably, not from all quarters. One of the more vocal detractors has been former Department for Education advisor (and current Director of Research at Policy Exchange) Iain Mansfield, who despaired at the prospect of "outstanding research... being slashed to just 50 per cent of the total score" whilst "running the right EDI schemes [became] fully half as important as actually producing outstanding research." When folk countered that a positive research culture might actually be a prerequisite to producing more outstanding research, he argued that if this was the case, we'd all being doing it anyway.

He has a point.

It's quite common to hear of research culture expenditure being justified in terms of the gold-and-glory that will surely result if we only get in there quick enough and spend enough fast enough. But the truth is that developing positive research cultures is not about short-term competitive advantage but about the long-term health of the sector. Research culture is a hygiene factor. We need to set the standard below which we must not fall, rather than making research culture the next big competition in Higher Education. It's about stemming the loss: the loss of good people (through lack of diversity, poor leadership, toxic behaviours, lack of career paths, recognition, and reward) and the loss of quality (through questionable research practices, closed and irreproducible research), and not a short-cut to gain.

Research culture competition

So whilst I disagree with Iain Mansfield that it's a mistake to allocate 25 per cent of REF outcomes to research culture, we need to make sure this has the desired long-term effect. The risk of pitting us all against each other in some unholy research culture competition is that hyper-competition was always at the heart of so many of our unhelpful research cultures. In fact, a lot of the research culture challenges we face are outwith the agency and reach of individual institutions, leaving collaboration as our only mechanism to create real change.

One thing is for sure: if we don't get this right and research culture does become the next big competition in HE, we all know who's going to win: our large, old and wealthy friends, the Very Research Intensives. Not only do they do more research - a fundamental prerequisite when it comes to research culture - they also benefit from many other forms of social and economic 'research capital'.

For starters, they have access to far more research culture funding. The Wellcome Trust are currently deliberating as to which of their already well-funded institutions they are going to further fund to improve their research cultures. Similarly, the research culture funding allocated to English HEIs by Research England is based on institution size. The have-nots get £50K, the have-lots get £1M. And whilst you might argue that more researchers require more support, remember there are economies of scale here. A research culture post costs the same whether it's in Cumbria or Cambridge, but it will absorb a much lower proportion of a £1M budget than that of a £50K one. (As Terry Pratchett taught us, it's expensive to be poor).

The other privilege available to the privileged of course, is direct access to a host of exclusive networks to support their efforts: Researchers 14 (for researcher developers in Russell Group HEIs), the Brunswick Group (for REF aficionados in Russell Group HEIs), the Research Directors Group for Russell Group HEIs, and of course Research Libraries UK (for Russell Group HEIs and friends thereof)... You get the picture.

There is a very real fear that, despite the introduction of research culture having the potential to level a playing field distorted by previous REF environment assessments, given the macro-culture in which our individual research cultures sit, the new approach may simply reward cumulative advantage.

What to do?

In March I was invited to attend a Cambridge Science and Policy workshop exploring how the REF could do more to recognise positive and inclusive research cultures, the report from which is cited in the REF Initial Decisions. Despite having to wrestle with my conscience about attending an "inclusive research cultures" event on the evening of a strike day in half-term which consisted of 50 per cent Cambridge folk, 90 per cent Russell Group, I was ultimately glad I did.

Firstly, there seemed to be agreement that research culture was a hygiene factor that could be defined by a core set of indicators. I pointed out that this is exactly how open access was treated in REF 2021. There were no star-ratings; you either hit the 95 per cent threshold or your score got dinged. End of.

There was an acceptance that all institutions are in a different place when it comes to research cultures. And what mattered was not so much where you were, but whether you were on the journey and how far you had come: a distance travelled model.

And there seemed to be agreement that making research culture assessment a competitive process with rank-able outcomes would mitigate against the collaborative and collective approaches to research culture improvement that we all need. Instead of being incentivised to hide our research culture good practice behind internal firewalls to avoid another institution getting the REF-benefits, we should be required to share our successes - and failures.

Whilst the concept of having a core set of research culture indicators - inspired in part by our Harnessing the Metric Tide report recommendation of using "Data for Good" - seems to have made it into the REF Initial Decisions, it is unclear whether these are to form a baseline of acceptability or a set of rateable dimensions.

Again, the Initial Decisions' idea of "tailoring submissions to institutional priorities" feels like an interpretation of the "distance travelled" approach but is not quite the same thing. Context is king when it comes to research culture assessment. And of course, a critical factor when considering someone's travel history, is the resources they have available to them to do the travelling. 'Research capital' is heavily size- and location-dependent. (Don't forget our Welsh, Scottish & Irish friends have no dedicated research culture allocations). Travelling 50 miles on foot is quite a different thing to travelling 50 miles business class in a private jet.

Finally, the suggestion of sharing case studies based on research culture activity (a la the Scottish Funding Council's Outcome Agreements) doesn't seem to have made it at all. I think this is a shame, because as I have argued before, whilst summative evaluation might motivate you to improve, it is formative evaluation that helps you to make the improvement. Knowing that Loughborough has a four-star research culture is all well and good, but knowing how they got there is far more useful to us in ultimately ensuring the long-term health of the sector.

At the workshop, I drew on Ottoline Leyser's concept of " net contribution ", to suggest that institutions should be assessed not only on how they improve their own research culture but how they support others to improve theirs. This is a joint enterprise, after all.

Everything to play for

I mean, it's early days and there is everything to play for here. The joint funding bodies are nothing if not consultative and a consultation is scheduled for the Autumn/Winter to flesh out some of the detail. We need to ensure that all institutions get a fair hearing here. There is no reason why a smaller less research-intensive institution shouldn't care as much about their research community and the standards they uphold, as a larger research intensive, and this should be reflected in the assessment design and outcomes.

Establishing baseline levels of acceptability and context-specific expectations will be critical (what did you do with what you've got?) and should leave institutions with a clear sense as to where and how they might improve, and not as a number on a ghastly research culture ranking.
I should like to acknowledge the helpful feedback and input of Dr Helen Young on an earlier draft of this piece.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
My research culture is better than yours | Wonkhe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With a new REF emphasis on research culture, Elizabeth Gadd asks how we can make this element as equitable as possible

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An agreement between universities, research institutes and funders to support the career development of researchers in the UK

Commit to the Concordat Read the Concordat

Skip to principles

Environment and Culture

Healthy working environments attract and develop a more diverse workforce, impact positively on individual and institutional performance, and enhance staff engagement.

Read More

This principle recognises that a proactive and collaborative approach is required between all stakeholders, to create and develop positive environments and cultures in which all researchers can flourish and achieve their full potential.

Employment

This principle recognises the importance of fair, transparent, and merit-based recruitment, progression and promotion, effective performance management, and a good work-life balance.

Read More

All stakeholders need to address long-standing challenges around insecurity of employment and career progression, ensuring equality of experience and opportunity for all, irrespective of background, contract type and personal circumstances.

Professional development

Researchers must be equipped and supported to be adaptable and flexible in an increasingly diverse global research environment and employment market.

Read More

This principle recognises the importance of continuous professional and career development, particularly as researchers pursue a wide range of careers.

Stakeholders
Institutions, Funders, Managers of Researchers and Researchers
The concordat has been created for the benefit of the whole research community within the UK to improve the environment and culture within which research is conducted. It will benefit those conducting and managing research, as well as the quality of the research itself. Although it is institutions and funders who will ultimately sign the Concordat, all stakeholders have responsibilities to help achieve its aims.

Signatories

Full list of signatories to the Researcher Development Concordat since its publication in September 2019

Click to expand each heading below to see signatories. Click on a logo to see each organisation's Research Development webpage and their signed letter of commitment to the concordat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home - The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Researcher Development Concordat supports organisations to provide an inclusive and positive environment for their researchers to thrive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vitae HR Excellence Award activities
Background
How Vitae supports HR Excellence in Research Award applications and Award holders
UK Action plan
"We are pleased to have received this recognition and will continue to support Europe-wide initiatives through involvement in policy development and its local implementation here in Cambridge." Professor Lynn Gladden, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, University of Cambridge

"Our research staff are crucial to the success of the University. We have been working hard to ensure our researchers are supported in developing their skills and careers as well as engaging with cutting edge research. We are thrilled that this has been recognised by the European Commission." Professor Mary Bownes, Vice Principal, Research Training, University of Edinburgh

"The existence of the European Commission HR Excellence in Research Award has helped to provide a focus and indeed a driver for this cross University activity." Paul Roberts, Assistant Director, University of Sussex

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Benefits to institutions of engaging with the EC's HR Excellence in Research initiative. Phase 1 and 2.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Para-Academic Handbook: A Toolkit For Making-Learning-Creating-Acting : Alex Wardrop and Deborah Withers, eds. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is a name for those under-and precariously employed, but actively working, academics in today’s society: the para-academic. Para-academics mimic…

# data[].attributes.headline
Book: Engaging Researchers with Data Management

# data[].attributes.subject
Book: Engaging Researchers with Data Management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Engaging Researchers with Data Management: The Cookbook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Engaging Researchers with Data Management is an invaluable collection of 24 case studies, drawn from institutions across the globe, that demonstrate clearly and practically how to engage the research community with RDM. These case studies together illustrate the variety of innovative strategies research institutions have developed to engage with their researchers about managing research data.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recent developments

In May 2023, the Data Stewards Interest Group (DSIG) joint forces with the NWO established thematic Digital Competence Centres for Life Science & Health ( LSH), Natural and Engineering Sciences ( NES), and Social Sciences and Humanities ( SSH). Researchers and institutions work together in these network organisations to develop exchangeable and reusable data and software, with the associated competencies, for specific research themes.

Consequently, all information on the DSIG and its meetings can also be found at the thematic Digital Competence Centres website.

For background on the DSIG and its good practices, including tips for those interested in starting a similar community on a national, domain or local level, this article and presentation offer a nice to read.

History

In June 2017 the Data Stewards Interest Group (DSIG) was initiated by members of Leiden UMC, UMC Utrecht, and DTL. Initially the DSIG met every other month and was chaired by Daphne van Beek. The distinctive feature of this DSIG in comparison to other initiatives regarding data stewardship is the hands-on and solution-oriented approach for practical matters.

In September 2018, with Jasmin Böhmer (UMC Utrecht) taking over the chairing position for the DSIG, the approach and collaboration design were revised. The new approach included monthly virtual meetings of the task groups and face to face meetings every two months as DSIG.

With the popularity of the DSIG growing and steady participation numbers, from 2020 onwards, there are six virtual meetings over the year. To allow variety and include the various local activities on data stewardship, each meeting is organised and chaired by another organisation. The DSIG is facilitated by Mijke Jetten (DTL/Health-RI).

An extra initiative are the topical/Special Interest Groups (SIG) that may result from the discussion in the DSIG meetings.

Vision

To establish a community hub for data stewardship that enables informal and inclusive knowledge and experience exchange.

Mission

Providing a platform for data stewards and like-minded in the Netherlands (and abroad) to share experiences.

Fostering the (Dutch) national implementation of data stewardship.

Joining efforts to produce hands-on solutions.

How to participate

The DSIG is open to everyone who is interested in data stewardship and is not limited to a specific academic discipline (nor to the Netherlands, but it is the Netherlands based).

You can sign up to the mailing list, or the slack community if you love to be actively involved. We use the slack community to actively share events, ask questions, and share experiences.

You can participate in person or virtually at the general DSIG meetings. The link will be provided in the agenda of each general DSIG meeting.

You can participate virtually in an existing topical/Special Interest Group (SIG), or suggest a topic for a new SIG.

New series: Spotlight on, data stewards in the spotlight

Every other week, the Thematic DCCs and the DSIG put the spotlight on one research data steward working in the Netherlands, to stimulate knowledge exchange and peer-to-peer learning.

Edition #1 introduces Pedro Hernandez Serrano. "Data is not a resource to be mined, but something to be nurtured and learned from. Therefore we don't need more 'data miners', we need more data stewards!"

Edition #2 featured Dorien Huijser. "I think we lack education. There is no formal education to become a data steward or data manager."

Edition #3 stars Jitka Vavra. "I would like to work with colleagues on developing training on FAIR data [...] with concrete examples and easy to follow how to procedures."

Edition #4 introduces Emma Schreurs. "I would love to see the current field of work evolve by professionalizing data stewards more, and defining their role more clearly within the universities."

Edition #5 stars Alex van der Jagt. "In the next few years, I would like to see a change in the general project workflow so that a data steward is consulted earlier."

Edition #6 introduces Bora Lushaj. "It is within our ability as data stewards to move closer to the disciplines we serve, to co-create FAIR resources together with researchers."

We welcome data stewards for the next editions via this form. Contact Mira Stanic in case of questions.

Meetings 2023

Meetings 2022

Meetings 2021

Meetings 2020

Meetings 2019

Meetings 2018

Materials and contact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Data Stewards Interest Group - Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent developments In May 2023, the Data Stewards Interest Group (DSIG) joint forces with the NWO established thematic Digital Competence Centres for Life Science & Health (LSH), Natural and Engineering Sciences (NES), and Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). Researchers and institutions...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The aim of Better Methods, Better Research is to ensure the use of the best research methods to advance biomedical, health and care focused policy and delivery.

# data[].attributes.headline
Book: Foundations of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research

# data[].attributes.subject
Book: Foundations of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research

# data[].attributes.body
Foundations of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bianca Vienni-Baptista, Isabel Fletcher and Catherine Lyall

Bianca Vienni-Baptista, Isabel Fletcher, Catherine Lyall, Maureen Burgess, Kirsi Cheas, Nathalie Dupin, Christian Pohl, Sibylle Studer and Doireann Wallace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This groundbreaking reader is designed to lower the barriers to interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in research. Edited by experienced researchers from a range of different fields, it paves the way for future scholarship and effective research collaborations across disciplines.

# data[].attributes.headline
Group: Social Science Leadership Network

# data[].attributes.subject
Group: Social Science Leadership Network

# data[].attributes.body
UK launches social science leadership network | Times Higher Education (THE)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK launching social science research leadership network

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research funder investing in leadership capability to support academics and encourage collaboration across disciplines and sectors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The cycle of good impact practice provides simple, step-by-step guidance for how to plan your impact, carry out measurement, assess the data you collect, and review your work. It is a four-step process and there are lots of practical, downloadable resources to support you along the way.

On 18 March 2022.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We publish free charity research, insights and resources on topics like measuring social impact so that others can benefit. Take a look.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welcome to the Co-Production Collective!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are a co-production community where everyone is welcome. Together we learn, connect, and champion co-production for lasting change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
wenger-trayner - Social learning theorists and consultants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Systems convening a new book Social learning across complex landscapes requires a certain kind of leadership, which we have called systems convening. Many people do this kind of work without any label, often unrecognized, and sometimes not even particularly aware that they are doing it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Report: Overcoming Barriers to Progress in Medical Humanities Research

# data[].attributes.subject
Report: Overcoming Barriers to Progress in Medical Humanities Research

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: Looking outward - the changing people needs of higher education in the years ahead

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: Looking outward - the changing people needs of higher education in the years ahead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Advance HE is delighted to share a blog by our Chief Executive, Alison Johns, published on the Wonkhe website introducing this new report 'Looking outward: the changing people needs of higher education in the years ahead'.

Produced by Wonkhe for Advance HE, this report aims to shine a light on the changing people needs in higher education around the world, as universities grapple with myriad changes in public policy, regulation and technology advancement.

"The opportunities for thinking differently about the range of possible career trajectories for academic and professional staff are significant, exciting, and challenging." Alison Johns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Looking outward: the changing people needs of higher education in the years ahead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Alison John, our Chief Executive, introduces a new report produced by Wonkhe for Advance HE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What are the current aims and objectives of Science Europe?

Research culture touches upon the core business of Science Europe's Member Organisations as it is linked to the quality of research, the contribution of science to knowledge generation, the role of science in and for society, and the sustainability of research systems as a whole. Science Europe and its member organisations will work towards defining and implementing positive cultures that foster sustainable research ecosystems where research and researchers thrive.

What is Science Europe doing to achieve these aims?

Science Europe's activities on research culture focus on the core values that we put at the centre of scientific research and ensure that they are reflected in policies and practices. Science Europe aims to:

Inspire the reappraisal of institutional approaches and values to support the diversity and sustainability of research systems. In doing so, lead and facilitate reflections on the boundaries, degree of self-organisation, and values of the current and future European R&I system and in the ERA.

Develop recognition frameworks that support quality-driven and healthy research cultures. This is done by promoting policies and practices that recognise, reward, and incentivise actions and behaviours that affirm the core values that underpin research systems.

Foster research recognition systems that value a broader array of research activities and outputs, as well as supporting a larger variety of career pathways for researchers and research-related staff.

Promote coherence between policy areas to improve the research ecosystem and conditions for researchers within it, such as: Open Science; access to Research Infrastructures; research integrity; promotion of equality, diversity, and inclusivity (EDI); recognition of methodological rigour; transparency; the reproducibility of scientific results; and research assessment processes.

The Science Europe holistic approach to research culture will help implementing specific actions in the areas above to improve the overall conditions for research activity and for researchers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research culture is a broad topic that can encompass the behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes, and norms of research systems. We are committed to opening up discussions to create the best possible research ecosystem where researchers thrive.

# data[].attributes.body
The Fearless Organization by Amy C. Edmondson | Waterstones

# data[].attributes.body
Research Culture - UK Research Integrity Office (ukrio.org)

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: Universities paying 'lip service' to interdisciplinary research

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: Universities paying 'lip service' to interdisciplinary research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Partnership will seek to reward institutions that incentivise cross-disciplinary work aimed at solving the world's biggest challenges

Incentives needed to build research across disciplines to address global challenges, THE summit hears

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Universities 'paying lip service' to interdisciplinary research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
THE analysis finds that high share of global institutions fail to recognise staff for cross-disciplinary working, as experts warn research environment is 'still not up to the task'

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: Five ways team leaders can improve research culture

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: Five ways team leaders can improve research culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Good mental health and wellbeing of research staff and students lead to better science: it is time to reflect on what we can do as team leaders to create a positive research culture.

Mental health concerns in academia are at an all-time high. With approximately one in two PhD students experiencing common mood disorders such as anxiety and/or depression (which is six times the rate for the general population), and with 78% of UK research staff showing moderate to severe signs of mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear something needs to change. These statistics are reflected within our postdoctoral community, with 51% of postdocs having considered leaving science altogether due to mental-health issues related to their work. With such a high incidence of mental health concerns, providing support for team members is essential. But as team leaders we can often be left wondering - what can we actually do to help?

The first and most important step for us as team leaders is to acknowledge is that mental health concerns are not just brought about by biological factors and that the onus for staying well is not just on the individual. A person may have pre-existing mental illnesses, but a toxic working environment can make it difficult even for the most resilient to survive. In short: the working environment we create as team leaders can impact the mental wellness of those around us. By acknowledging this fact, we can work towards building and reinforcing a positive research culture where every member of our team can thrive.

There are many environmental factors that can add stress and lead to worsened mental wellbeing for students and staff. For example, financial struggles, feeling like an impostor (the 'impostor phenomenon'), being subject to bullying and harassment, or simply feeling like a 'bad scientist' because science is not going to plan, can all have negative effects. And whilst one person's experience may be different to another's, there are often common themes that emerge that we, as team leaders, have influence over.

Foster collaboration, not competition

In a report by the Wellcome Trust, 78% of researchers said that high levels of competition in their workplace had created unkind and aggressive research conditions. This is not conducive to maintaining mental wellness: it can lead people to working long hours in a 'race to the bottom' to stay 'ahead' of others. This is damaging both to mental and physical health, with overwork being a key contributor to occupational stress. It is therefore important that as team leaders we encourage our staff and students to take time off and not routinely overwork. The culture of overwork is often reinforced passively - if we never take breaks, our team will infer they cannot either. As team leaders we must therefore lead by example (where we can). Further, a highly competitive environment can make it difficult for our staff and students to speak to one another about how they are feeling and reach out to their colleagues when they need support. For those of you that wish to use competition as a motivator, consider having your team compete with external groups, rather than internally, to create a more positive working environment.

Put the conversation on the agenda

One of the biggest issues with mental health is that we simply do not talk about it due to stigma, and yet talking can often help those struggling. As team leaders we can be creative in how we start off the conversation, for example incorporating papers on research culture, like the report by the Wellcome Trust 'What researchers think about the culture they work in', into our journal clubs, creating a safe space for discussion. Further, simply taking the time to discuss with our staff and students about how they are actually getting on and how they are feeling at the start of one-to-one meetings, rather than jumping straight into discussing science, can be beneficial. Sometimes it is small but simple changes in our behaviour that can have long-term impact on the wellbeing of those around us.

Address bullying and harassment

Unfortunately bullying and harassment are rife in science, with around one in five PhD students experiencing one or both. It is important to understand that bullying can be perpetuated by team leaders who enable toxic behaviour to happen. It is our responsibility to understand our own biases (we all have them) and call out discriminatory behaviour within our own research groups by members of our team. If we do not do this, we risk alienating vulnerable team members. Feeling isolated and targeted can have huge mental health implications. Visible reporting routes are also essential to support our staff and students: if they don't exist, we must advocate for them to be introduced at our institutions.

Seek training

As team leaders, we have typically been elevated to our position based on scientific merit and our publication record. Very few of us have training in mental health support (something that universities and institutions need to work on). In the meantime, seeking out training for ourselves is key. By developing skills to respond to a student in crisis we not only help the student but also ourselves: it can be incredibly stressful to manage a crisis situation with no training. Having knowledge of the resources that are available to support staff and students, be it referrals to medical support or talking therapy, can also help our staff and students get the rapid support they require.

Don't be afraid to be vulnerable

It can be all too easy for people to internalize the (incorrect) notion that to be a scientist is to 'think and not feel', which leads to increased impostor feelings, a reduced sense of belonging and ultimately impacts mental health. Leading a team, we can often think that strength lies in appearing infallible, but our staff and students benefit from seeing us as real people behind the scientific work that we do. If we don't show on occasion how we feel, and that we are human, when others are struggling it can be hard for them to seek help and turn to us for support.

Conclusion

As a final note - undoubtedly we will get things wrong. Mental health is complex, and we are learning too. It is important to recognize that even as team leaders we cannot control everything, particularly when it comes to the personal lives and experiences of our team members. Instead we can realize the positive impact we can have on the day-to-day workings of our laboratories and research groups. We can set boundaries. We can decide which behaviours get reinforced and which do not. We can choose to be become more informed on mental health topics to support our staff and students. By realizing the power that resides with us and in the example we set, we can make a difference and work towards making science a safer, more inclusive space for everyone. It starts with us.

References

1. Levecque, K. et al. Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Res. Policy 46, 868-879 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

2. Evans, T. et al. Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 282-284 (2018).

3. Woolston, C. Postdocs under pressure: 'can I even do this any more?' 587, 689-692 (2020).

4. Smith, D. K. The race to the bottom and the route to the top. Nat. Chem. 12, 101-103 (2020).

5. Winefield, A. H. & Jarrett, R. Occupational stress in university staff. Int. J. Stress Manag. 8, 285-298 (2001).

Article Google Scholar

6. Woolston, C. PhDs: the tortuous truth. Nature 575, 403-406 (2019).

7. Makarova, E. et al. The Gender Gap in STEM fields: the impact of the gender stereotype of math and science on secondary students' career aspirations. Front. Educ. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00060 (2019).

Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Birmingham, UK

Zoë Ayres

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoë Ayres.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

About this article

Cite this article

Ayres, Z. Five ways team leaders can improve research culture. Nat Rev Mater 6, 758-759 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00357-1
Download citation

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five ways team leaders can improve research culture - Nature Reviews Materials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Good mental health and wellbeing of research staff and students lead to better science: it is time to reflect on what we can do as team leaders to create a positive research culture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to content

Founded in 2013, GW4 is an alliance of four of the most research-intensive and innovative universities in the UK: Bath, Bristol, Cardiff and Exeter. Collaboration is at the heart of everything we do and it makes us greater together than the sum of our parts. We work with other universities, businesses and civic bodies, acting as the anchor institutions to support a knowledge-intensive economy. Change doesn't happen alone.

GW4 Alliance brings together four universities

GW4 Alliance brings together four universities

The GW4 Alliance brings together four of the most research-intensive and innovative universities in the UK: Bath, Bristol, Cardiff and Exeter. From the creative arts to the physical sciences, we combine world-leading scholarship, infrastructure and expertise.

We unite four research-intensive and innovative universities

Bath, Bristol, Cardiff and Exeter University make up the GW4 Alliance.

Collaborate with organisations, industry, and society

We enhance research collaboration to address global, societal and industrial challenges, and provide policy guidance at national and international levels.

Form research communities from complementary expertise

We identify areas of complementary expertise across our universities to develop research communities at scale.

News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The GW4 Alliance brings together four of the most research-intensive and innovative universities in the UK: Bath, Bristol, Cardiff and Exeter.

# data[].attributes.headline
Report: GW4 Diversity in Postgraduate Research

# data[].attributes.subject
Report: GW4 Diversity in Postgraduate Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Event to be held in Bristol - location to be announced.
Diversity and inclusivity is important across our institutions, and yet remains a significant challenge. While more attention has been placed on recruitment, addressing these questions doesn't stop at diversifying students we admit, but instead continues across the entire student journey - from initially attracting students to apply all the way through to graduation and future careers in academia and beyond. To create an equal research environment for students, diversity and inclusivity should be considered throughout postgraduate training and, in many cases, in their research questions, methods, and analyses.

This symposium will bring together academic, professional services staff and postgraduate research students across the GW4 Alliance universities of Bath, Bristol, Cardiff and Exeter to consider diversity and inclusivity across the postgraduate research student journey. Discussions on the day will include, but are not limited to:

how we make sure that inclusive support is available to students from when they join us,

what considerations need to be addressed by when designing research projects and questions to promote diversity and inclusion, particularly for those working with human participants, or with data produced by human participants,

how we practically support the ED&I aspirations of our postgraduate research students at all stages of the research cycle.

Drawing on best practice and experiences across the region, the symposium will aim to answer the above challenges and share best practice. We will also ask if there is a special role that postgraduate research students can play in the wider EDI aspirations of the GW4 Universities.

Funding is available to reimburse travel costs if that is not available from your institutions.
To register for the event please follow this link: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/gw4-diversity-in-postgraduate-research-thinking-beyond-admissions-tickets-430936862757
General queries about the event can be sent to talentandskills@gw4.ac.uk. Questions can also be sent to the academic leads for the event - Professor Ian Craddock (ian.craddock@bristol.ac.uk) and Dr Hanna Kristiina Isotalus (hanna.isotalus@bristol.ac.uk).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GW4 Diversity in Postgraduate Research - thinking beyond admissions - GW4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Event to be held in Bristol - location to be announced. Diversity and inclusivity is important across our institutions, and yet remains a significant challenge. While more attention has been placed on recruitment, addressing these questions doesn't stop at diversifying students we admit, but instead continues across the entire student journey - from initially attracting ...

# data[].attributes.body
https://t.co/7CQSNNaUlf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To achieve global excellence in research and innovation, the research workforce must bring a diversity of experiences, expertise and ideas which necessitates the creation of inclusive research cultures to remove barriers for marginalised researchers in order to meet UKRI's UK-wide talent programme and research concordats on responsible research practices. Our vision for the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Caucus (EDICa) is to create inclusive research cultures enabling diverse researchers to access and thrive in careers across the research and innovation (R&I) systems, removing barriers to full participation experienced by women, disabled, LGBTQI and racially minoritized researchers, and researchers with caring responsibilities. EDICa will act as a focal point, identifying, evaluating and synthesising EDI initiatives across the R&I systems ensuring research addresses the needs of a diverse range of stakeholders.

Funded by UKRI and the British Academy, EDICa is a national project which aims to bring an intersectional perspective to the multiple disadvantages which can face marginalised researchers and innovators. The Caucus will use a co-design approach led by those with lived experience of exclusion and marginalisation to undertake and evaluate interventions designed to create equitable workplaces across the research and innovation ecosystems. The Caucus leadership is itself an interdisciplinary team bringing lived experiences of marginalisation across the research and innovation ecosystems including racialised inequalities, disability, neurodiversity, LGBTQI and gendered inequalities. Each member of the team is committed to the removal of barriers to equity in the workplace generally and specifically for those pursuing careers in research and innovation.
https://www.ukri.org/news/ukri-and-the-british-academy-fund-edi-network-to-boost-ri-in-uk/
Review our Research Themes here and our Year 1 activities here.

EDICa's Objectives

1. To synthesise extant evidence (including peer reviewed literature, grey literature, data from funders) to identify gaps in the evidence, and to develop insights and recommendations for key stakeholders (including the funders) on EDI practice and policy.

2. To conduct a programme of co-designed research which aims to advance the EDI literacy of key stakeholders, co-create enabling research workspaces and advance understanding of the gendered aspects of disability in research careers (specifically problematic menstruation and perimenopause).

3. To commission, via a flexible fund, research and impact projects which create a step-change in EDI across the research & innovation systems.

4. To create, via stakeholder engagement groups, communities of practice, highly skilled in EDI practice.

5. To undertake a co-designed multimedia and multimethods approach to disseminating EDI in research and innovation evidence, best practice, profiles of successful researchers (and their research) and case studies via a robust programme of community engagement activities, culminating in the production of an interactive web-tool Equity in Research and Innovation Careers (ERICa).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To achieve global excellence in research and innovation, the research workforce must bring a diversity of experiences, expertise and ideas which necessitates the creation of inclusive research cultures to remove barriers for marginalised researchers in order to meet UKRI's UK-wide talent programme and research concordats on responsible research practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research and development (R&D) people and culture strategy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We use some essential cookies to make this website work. We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services. We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: Operational research theories that can be applied to Research Culture

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: Operational research theories that can be applied to Research Culture

# data[].attributes.body
Five sketches of postmodernism: Implications for systems thinking and operational research (researchgate.net)

# data[].attributes.headline
Resources: UKRIO Research Culture Resources

# data[].attributes.subject
Resources: UKRIO Research Culture Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research Culture UKRIO Resources Webinar: UKRIO research integrity webinar: Research Culture, Wednesday 9 December 2020 this webinar focused on Research Culture. Video recordings and slides for each speaker can be found in the link above. Building a healthy research culture - Professor Leanne Hodson BSc(Hons) PhD, BHF Senior Research Fellow in Basic Science / Professor [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
Resources: UKRI Good Research Resource Hub

# data[].attributes.subject
Resources: UKRI Good Research Resource Hub

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We want to foster a research and innovation system where diverse and dynamic people and ideas can thrive. This research resource hub brings together policies, standards and guidance to support researchers, innovators and organisations, nurturing an inclusive research and innovation environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We want to foster a research and innovation system where diverse and dynamic people and ideas can thrive. This research resource hub brings together policies, standards and guidance to support researchers, innovators and organisations, nurturing an inclusive research and innovation environment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Resources: Lincoln Impact Literacy Institute

# data[].attributes.subject
Resources: Lincoln Impact Literacy Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Projects Publications Resources Conferences and talks

# data[].attributes.headline
Resource: Russell Group Research Culture and Environment Toolkit

# data[].attributes.subject
Resource: Russell Group Research Culture and Environment Toolkit