The UK’s “amateurish approach” to research leadership, which relies on “trial, error, osmosis and luck”, is threatening to hold back scientific progress, says a report that calls for more training and support for senior researchers.
In a new publication for the Higher Education Policy Institute, Matthew Flinders, professor of politics at the University of Sheffield, says there is currently a “vacuum” in thinking around research leadership, especially how leadership skills can be nurtured across the sector.
At present, researchers generally develop their skills through a highly inefficient combination of trial and error, luck and “structured serendipity”, explains Professor Flinders, a former Economic and Social Research Council board member who reviewed the issue of research leadership for the council in 2020.
In practice, “mid-career and senior academics are commonly expected to assume research leadership responsibilities with very little or no formal training”, he says, stating that training is often focused on early career staff.
Without training, a “learning on the job model” means “skills are developed through trial and error”, with “luck and the existence of a supportive mentor” being the most important factors in whether a researcher progresses to a leadership position, says the report, Research Leadership Matters: Agility, Alignment, Ambition.
Those in positions of authority are often “heavily dependent on the goodwill of colleagues” to lead successfully, while researchers say they feel “isolated, unsupported, and vulnerable” when they reach management roles, it adds.
More broadly, contributions to research leadership roles are “often not formally recognised or rewarded in workload models of promotion and reward frameworks”, which “risks locking in systemic gendered inequalities and creating perverse and individualised incentives”, adds Professor Flinders.
The “heroic leadership” model of leadership is also unhelpful for research institutions given that its leaders are often most appreciated for their “off-stage roles” such as “facilitating, nurturing and protecting the research potential of others”.
Commenting on the Hepi report, which was published on 3 November, Professor Flinders said research leadership was important “because as the research endeavour becomes more complex, collaborative and co-designed, so too will researchers have to combine their subject-specific knowledge with the capacity to work as part of larger teams and networks”. “Ensuring that the UK science base is ‘fit for the future’ rather than ‘fit for the past’ presents both a leadership challenge and a leadership opportunity,” he added.
Potential programmes could be based on the two-year-long Future Leaders in Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Research scheme that was launched by the Academy of Medical Sciences in February 2019, he suggested.
Other ideas include establishing a small number of national “celebrating research leadership” prizes, improving mobility between sectors and disciplines with a new “discipline-hopping” funding scheme and new “research re-entry fellowships” for those who have worked in industry.
A new senior research leadership programme could also be created by UK Research and Innovation to provide cross-council support, while the creation of laureate professorial fellows to recognise leadership excellence and drive change, particularly around equality and diversity, could also help, Professor Flinders recommends as a part of a 12-point plan for leadership change.
