Search results

This paper focuses on two inter‐related components of developing institutional research capacity in the social sciences: developing a research culture (of a specific nature), and developing researchers. I use the term “researcher” in the context of this paper to refer both to academics for whom research is, or is intended to be, a component of their work and of their contractual responsibilities, and to those employed in research only roles. First, however, I address the issue of the need for development, outlining the shortcomings of social science research and, by extension and implication, of the research leadership that I suggest is failing – at least in part – to achieve its purpose of developing institutional research capacity.

This paper aims to discuss with an introductory narrative on the models and its role in the context of librarianship.

This paper explores the relationship between researcher development and library research support. The authors observed the interconnectedness of the two concepts and how this should be studied more with respect to librarianship. Five major higher education and researcher development–related models are examined to assess which would be more suited for library’s research support activities. Accordingly, Prof Linda Evans’ conceptual researcher development model, the Vitae Researcher Development Framework (RDF), the Research Skill Development Framework, Society of College, National and University Libraries Seven Pillars of Information Literacy model and Association of College and Research Libraries’ Standards for Libraries in Higher Education were reviewed. Review and examination of the frameworks, along with relevant literature on the topic, were examined.

The authors found that the Vitae RDF seemed most ideal, as it was comprehensive and detailed in presentation and could be used not just by the academic staff but also by librarians and researchers to their benefit.

Further studies and thorough review of recent educational and library-related frameworks and models are required from the lens of library research support.

Application of frameworks needs to be actively adopted by librarians.

There are few studies that have examined researcher development and research support in librarianship in conjunction. The present study has aimed to bridge this gap.

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.

A two‐year qualitative study with business leaders identified salient dimensions of organisational culture (OC) which were then operationalised into a multiscale survey. The Survey of Organisational Culture (SOC) was then employed in ten empirical studies to assess: reliability, validity, perceived usefulness to professional managers and the overall feasibility and adequacy of objective assessments of OC. The results indicate that reliable and meaningful information can be obtained that will be useful to managers.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the implications of recent changes in doctoral education for supervisors who are developing early career researchers in terms of the need to develop their professionality.

This conceptual paper seeks to establish an historical benchmark in terms of the Von Humboldt model of doctoral education and the associated master‐apprentice model of supervision. It then sets out the key changes of the past three decades and summarises what is described as the post‐Humboldian doctorate. These changes are then related to the knowledge and skills needed for successful supervisory practice and to the professionality of research supervisors.

The paper demonstrates that the shift to the post‐Humboldtian doctorate has radically expanded the knowledge, understanding, and skills required by supervisors to successfully develop early career researchers and that these can be arrayed on a continuum represented by indicative characteristics of “restricted” to “extended” professionality as applied to supervisors.

The implications are that professional development programmes for supervisors developing early career researchers need to be reviewed in the light of how far they can support participants to make the full range of adjustments necessary to develop their own professionality as supervisors.

The paper is the first to apply the notion of professionality – and its “restricted”‐“extended” range – to the doctoral supervisory role.