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 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.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

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, .

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.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

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.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

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.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com