Report on Principal Investigator & Research Leaders Survey 2011

Transcription

1 Hutchence Centre for Staff Training and Development Section name Report on Principal Investigator & Research Leaders Survey 2011 Dr Justin Hutchence, Research Staff Development Manager 1 1 I would like to thank Nathan Helsby for his help in analysing the data for this report. University of Reading 2012 Page 1

2 Contents Executive Summary 3 Proposed Actions 4 Further Analysis 6 University of Reading 2012 Page 2

3 Executive Summary Structure The national survey was split into four key areas: confidence in responsibilities; importance of activities for future research leaders; recognition and value; and equality and diversity. Response 41% of PIs at Reading responded to the survey in comparison with a 19% response across the sector. Thirty three institutions participated with 2,588 responses nationally. Key Results for Reading Confidence in Responsibilities PIs rated their confidence in a range of skills and abilities as a percentage. Reading s responses echoed those of the sector apart from one major difference: respondents at Reading rated their support services higher than their comparators in two thirds of the areas analysed. The following issues need to be addressed because Reading s results were low, and/or below the sector norm. Reading PIs confidence in: maximising research outputs; demonstrating the impact of their research: managing performance; knowledge exchange; budget management. Importance of activities for future research leaders: PIs at Reading gave a low level of importance to research impact and continuing professional development as issues for future research leaders to focus on. Recognition and value Reading PIs feel more appreciated for their work than the rest of the sector, but they feel least appreciated for the role of research group leader. Reading respondents rate the Staff Development Review (SDR) higher than the sector s view of their own appraisal systems. However, there are still low results for SDRs leading to: training and other development opportunities; finding solutions to problems; and changes in work practices. Equality and diversity Almost all PIs at Reading believe that the University is committed to Equal Opportunities and Diversity. However there appears to be an issue of perceived age discrimination that needs further investigation. Work-life balance is an issue for PIs at Reading which is shared across the sector. University of Reading 2012

4 Proposed Actions Confidence in responsibilities: Issues to be addressed 1. Maximising research outputs (publications etc): Reading respondents rated their own confidence in this area 12% lower than the sector. 2. Demonstrating the impact of my research (e.g. academic, economic and societal): Whilst mirroring the sector it is still 10 points below the median for this group of research-related experience and activities. 3. Managing performance: At 50% confidence rating similar to sector (54%) but nevertheless a poor result. 4. Knowledge exchange (through collaborative training, people exchange, commercialisation and development): This is the lowest result for Reading and the sector in the research related section. 5. Budget management: Reading PIs score themselves lowest in the management section. This result is significantly lower than the sector. Reading s confidence in its support services in this area is lower than the sector too. Proposed Action This result needs further investigation through discussions with schools senior management and PIs at follow up meetings. This may have changed since the dialogue with schools on the matter conducted by Rachel Stewart. There is a set of good practice sharing seminars scheduled for February on writing impact statements with SDoRs, DDoRs, Unit of Assessment Leaders, Unit of Assessment Impact Leaders, and Case Study Writers. Processes need to be established with the wider academic community at Reading to ensure that impact is considered from the design stage of research projects. Refer to Professor Peter Grindrod, Director of Innovation and Knowledge Exchange. Existing CSTD centrally provided course, plus the option of School based training to be discussed at meetings with school senior management. This issue will feed into the current discussions on performance management. Refer to Professor Peter Grindrod. Refer to Carol Wright, Finance Directorate. University of Reading 2012 Page 4

5 Importance of activities for future research leaders: Reading PIs echoed the views of the sector with their top priorities being: research funding and publication. Issues to be addressed 1. Continuing professional development is bottom of their priorities. Proposed Action Further investigation in discussion with school senior management and PIs. 2. Impact is 13 th out of 24 categories. See Confidence in Responsibilities point 2 above. Recognition and value: Issues to be addressed PIs at Reading and throughout the sector feel least appreciated for management of their research groups. 36% of respondents consider SDRs are useful for leading to training or development opportunities. 45% of PIs who responded thought SDRs were useful in finding solutions to problems or leading to changes in work practices. Proposed Action Research group management is one of the areas covered in academic promotion procedure, therefore this bears further investigation in discussion with school senior management and PIs. Further investigation in discussion with school senior management and PIs. Equality and Diversity: Issues to be addressed Reading s results mirror those of sector apart from the perception of age discrimination which needs further investigation. Work life balance for PIs is a concern for Reading PIs as it is for the sector. Proposed Action Refer to Equality Office. Already being addressed through the Health and Wellbeing agenda. University of Reading 2012 Page 5

6 Further Analysis Response The survey was conducted amongst 33 HEIs with 8 from the Russell Group and 10 from the 1994 Group. Principal Investigators and Research Leaders at Reading responded in good numbers. 41% of those eligible filled in the survey. This compares to a sector wider response of 19%. This appears to indicate an exceptionally high turn-out in Reading. However, all these figures are based on a differing approach to estimating the numbers of Principal Investigators available to complete the survey. At Reading every PI with a research grant enabling them to employ a member of Research Staff as of February 2011 was included. At other institutions figures were based on the number of academics employed. Nevertheless Reading achieved a good response rate; the gender split is outlined below. There was a 60:40 split of EU and non- EU respondents. Confidence in Responsibilities A significant proportion of the survey, 25 questions, was devoted to asking PIs to rate their confidence out of 100% in a range of skills and abilities. Generally the results from the University of Reading mirror those in the sector though at a slightly lower level, demonstrating that: In terms of the wide range of activities undertaken by principal investigators and research leaders, not unexpectedly, respondents had the greatest overall confidence in directly research-related activities. Fewer were confident in their management and leadership of people and a significant proportion would like to have more confidence University of Reading 2012 Page 6

7 in performance management, employment conditions and the application and impact of research 2 However, the results in this area did demonstrate a higher confidence in the support services offered at Reading compared with the sector. There were 16 areas out of 25 where Reading s support services were rated higher than the sector. Of those 16 support services, the following areas were scored substantially greater than the sector: Fig 2: Highest rated Reading support services compared against sector Probation and appraisal Induction Recruitment and selection 69% 71% 73% 81% 84% 84% Securing research funding Collaborations outside HE (with other sectors, research users) 55% 55% 65% 71% Knowledge of research strategies and priorities (locally, nationally and internationally) 64% 76% Participating in Continuing Professional Development Developing a research area or programme 70% 73% 84% 84% Sector UoR 2 Vitae, Principal Investigators and Research Leaders Survey (PIRLS) 2011 UK Aggregate Results, p.3. University of Reading 2012 Page 7

8 When analysing the results by gender this throws up some interesting results. Women Principal Investigators express more confidence in the following areas than men: Fig 3: Confidence in skills and abilities: Reading PIs Women>Men Demonstrating the impact of my research (e.g. academic, economic and societal) Managing performance Time management Conditions of employment for research staff Providing career development advice Building and managing a research group Good research conduct (ethics, IP etc) Induction Participating in Continuing Professional Development Recruitment and selection Motivating individuals Planning and preparing research proposals 49% 43% 60% 64% 58% 70% 52% 71% 61% 71% 65% 73% 61% 74% 66% 76% 58% 78% 86% 80% 61% 86% 83% 91% Women UoR Men UoR University of Reading 2012 Page 8

9 On the other hand Male Principal Investigators express more confidence in the following areas than women: Fig 4: Confidence in skills and abilities: Reading PIs Men>Women Knowledge exchange (through collaborative training, people exchange, commercialisation and development) 50% 57% Collaborations outside HE (with other sectors, research users) 52% 59% Maximising research outputs (publications etc) 38% 49% Knowledge of research strategies and priorities (locally, nationally and internationally) 39% 50% Leading your research team 74% 80% UoR Women UoR Men There were some areas where Reading s results were low although they shared this with the rest of the sector and other areas where the results were low and lower than the sector. University of Reading 2012 Page 9

10 Low Results shared with sector Reading PIs rated their experience and skills of Demonstrating the impact of my research (e.g. academic, economic and societal) at 54%, which is 9 points below the mean and 10 points below the median for this group of research-related experiences and activities. Considering the upcoming REF it would appear that this issue should be addressed. The low confidence expressed in knowledge exchange may also be matter of concern. University of Reading 2012 Page 10

11 The overall confidence in managing performance is also of concern as it has implications for research output and also for the welfare and job satisfaction of members of research groups. Fig6: Respondents' confidence in employment related activities Managing performance 54% 50% Conditions of employment for research staff 52% 58% Probation and appraisal 65% 62% Providing career development advice 65% 65% Induction 69% 69% Recruitment and selection 76% 82% Sector UoR University of Reading 2012 Page 1

12 Low Results in comparison with sector Reading s Principal Investigators have expressed notably lower confidence in their own budget management skills than the sector as a whole. In contrast to the rest of the survey Reading PIs also rate the support available to them in this area lower than the PIs in the sector Also concerning is the confidence that Reading PIs express about their skills in maximising research outputs in comparison with the Sector. Reading s confidence rating was 57% as opposed to 69% for the Sector (See Fig 5 above). Importance of activities for future research leaders The results outlined below demonstrate that Reading generally mirrors the sector s priorities when rating the importance of various activities in becoming a research leader. Unsurprisingly, securing research funding, and publications feature at the top of the table. Continuing professional development is the lowest on the list. It may be worth raising the question what do academics understand as continuing professional development as there may be a range of responses. Research Impact features 13 th out of 24 categories. This may need to be addressed in light of the messages from HEFCE and other senior academics who believe the impact agenda is likely to be a major feature of higher education in future. 3 3 Professor Michael Arthur, Chair of the Russell Group, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leeds, UHR Conference May University of Reading 2012 Page 12

13 Fig 8: Recommendations for becoming effective research leaders of tomorrow Participating in Continuing Professional Development Providing career development advice to others Knowledge exchange (through collaborative training, Induction, probation and appraisal Conditions of employment for research staff Budget management Public engagement and outreach activities Recruitment and selection process Collaborations outside HE (with other sectors, research Managing performance Good research conduct (ethics, IP etc) Demonstrating the impact of their research (e.g. Knowledge of research strategies and priorities (locally, Presenting at conferences Building and managing a research group/research staff Supervision of research students Time management Leading a research team Motivating individuals Academic collaborations (including interdisciplinary and Developing a research area or programme Planning and preparing research proposals Maximising research outputs (publications etc) Securing research funding Sector mean score UoR mean score University of Reading 2012 Page 13

14 Recognition and Value Principal Investigators at Reading rate the SDR system higher than their contemporaries rate their appraisal systems. Although at the lower end of the responses, Reading s PIs view the SDR s usefulness at finding solutions to problems and in leading to changes in work practice well above their counterparts in other institutions. The lowest response, that of appraisals leading to training or other development opportunities, may be indicative of the lack of development provision across the sector at this level. It may also be that this relates back to the understanding of continuing professional development amongst PIs. The percentage of PIs completing SDRs is over 80% which is much higher than the result for Research Staff (65% of RS at Reading reported having an SDR in the Careers in Research Online Survey 2009). Fig 9: Usefulness of appraisal In leading to training or other development opportunities? For finding solutions to problems? 35% 36% 31% 45% In leading to changes in work practices? 27% 45% In helping you focus on your career aspirations and how these are met by your current role? For highlighting challenges? 44% 51% 60% 60% In setting clear expectations and objectives? 55% 61% In identifying your strengths and achievements? 55% 63% In reviewing your personal progress? 57% 64% Sector UoR University of Reading 2012 Page 14

15 The figures below indicate that Reading s PIs consider that they are recognised for their contribution to the University s activities better than the Sector as a whole. However they believe that their work in managing their research group is least recognised. Fig 10: Recognition of Contribution Managing your research group? Demonstrating impact of research? Supervising research students? Promoting the institution? Management and administration within the institution? Academic leadership? World-class research? Teaching and lecturing? Research income? Publications? 50% 46% 54% 55% 60% 59% 58% 59% 53% 59% 57% 65% 62% 67% 60% 70% 65% 74% 69% 83% Sector U o R University of Reading 2012 Page 15

16 Equality and Diversity According to the results the only issue that may need further investigation is that of age discrimination where Reading s results are low when viewed against the other categories in this section and also lower than the sector s. On a positive note 90% of the respondents at Reading believe that the University is committed to equal opportunities and diversity. However work life balance appears to be as much an issue for Reading as it does for the sector. Fig 11: Treated fairly irrespective of... Age Gender Pregnancy and maternity Gender identity Sexual orientation Disability Nationality Religion/belief Ethnicity 85% 80% 83% 88% 90% 90% 95% 94% 98% 95% 96% 95% 93% 95% 98% 97% 95% 98% Sector UoR University of Reading 2012 Page 16

17 Fig 12: I believe my institution is committed to equality and diversity 85% 10% 5% Sector Agree 90% 7% 3% Disagree UoR Don't Know 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Fig 13: I am satisfied with my work-life balance 53% 46% 1% Sector Agree 50% 50% 0% Disagree UoR Don't Know 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% University of Reading 2012 Page 17