Research organisation is a vexed question. How should we organise ourselves to maximise our research potential and foster innovation and collaboration while boosting our collective output? Over the course of my career I have seen and participated in many different forms of research centre or grouping, from informal clusters of academics sharing ideas over coffee, to formally defined research centres. The key to the success of all these different centres is meaningful intellectual interaction leading to a sense of purpose and output; not just talking shops, but ones focused on talk and action! Some of the most successful centres I have seen consist of little more than a couple of established academics – say a Professor and a lecturer – and around them they have built through their own funding bids a fluid team of talented post-docs and research assistants who create the energy and drive as they push to develop their own career and often land that first lecturing job. The role of the Professor is simply to guide and channel this energy, writing the applications to retain or employ new ‘bright things’. This is the model I understand best with Professors leading from the front and generating their own research teams. There are a few examples of this within BU, but not many, and I would like to see many more in the next few years. It is a model that drives research growth and develops critical mass without a dependence on established posts. It is also common in most research active Universities across the World.
At BU we have in recent years ‘forced’ research centres into existence, insisting that every academic belongs to a centre. They have become establishment structures often at odds with academic groups and departments, which have a broader focus, often led by frustrated field marshals unable to inspire or direct the troops within them. This was all elegantly brought out in the review undertaken by Professor Adrian Newton a few years ago. A key point here was that structures for research were often at conflict with structure for education, yet at the heart of BU’s future is the duality of education and research feeding from one another in a creative fashion. It is one of the reasons why one of the out comes of this review was a focus on academic groups or departments which combine both research and teaching. The question needs to be asked therefore about what to do with our structure of research centres?
I have almost finished visiting all twenty five of BU’s current Research Centres and the picture is very mixed. While some are clearly vibrant units where academics are working together to create exciting output both in education and research, others are dysfunctional neither meaningful academic networks, nor effective leadership vehicles. Added to this mix we have the term Centres of Research Excellence, prevalent in the Strategic Plan of a few years a go. But we never actually defined what these where and none where officially recognised, although several aspire to the crown.
To my mind there are two alternative ways of approaching the issue of research centres. The first is based on silo-free, organic academic networks in which academic staff are free to choose where, and with whom, they work and collaborate both on education and research. Research clusters or centres will form where there is real synergy and research output. In this model the key is to create an environment where this can happen – where staff can mix freely and find collaborators easily both within and beyond BU and we are actively tackling this at the moment through the Collaborative Tools for Academics Project. In this approach research would be manifest simply through output produced via the big BU Research Themes we are currently defining and not through static structures of centres or clusters. Academic Groups and Departments would off course remain and may or may not map on to these organic, output driven clusters of academic talent.
T
he alternative model is to maintain and/or re-fresh our current structure of centres. Effectively to reinforce the imposed structures which currently for some prescribe and limit academic freedom and collaborative potential. Despite these issues it is perhaps a more inclusive model since everybody belongs somewhere, but our recent history suggests that this model limits collaboration and innovation. There is also a hybrid model in which we recognise a few – literally one or two – Centres of Research Excellence defined clearly by a performance threshold based on output, income, reputation and research impact. Such status would have to be won and could also be lost if performance declined. The rest of our research would be defined via a fluid series of clusters and centres which could form and re-form as academic interaction changes over time as with the first model.
Which ever of these models we favour, and for what its worth I am inclined to either the former or the hybrid model, it is essential that we see centres of activity in the broadest sense combining both research and education. That conflicts with academic groups based on line-management are minimized, but that we create an environment where silo-free collaboration across BU is a reality not just a dream. So as part of the re-think around the Research Strategy at BU I am interested in hearing from you on this broad topic and look forward to your comments.
Matthew Bennett
PVC (Research, Enterprise & Internationalisation)
New paper on Birthing Centres in Nepal
New weight change BU paper
One week to go! | The 16th Annual Postgraduate Research Conference
Geography and Environmental Studies academics – would you like to get more involved in preparing our next REF submission?
Congratulations to three former BU staff
MSCA Staff Exchanges 2024 Call – internal deadline
Applications are now open for 2025 ESRC Postdoctoral Fellowships!
Horizon Europe – ERC CoG and MSCA SE webinars
MaGMap: Mass Grave Mapping
ERC grants – series of webinars
Wow, that’s a bit radical.
Let the academic staff sort things out for ourselves rather than impose layer upon layer of management on us.
Yes please.
A very important point you made in your talk last Friday was that research strategy is internally focused, I feel these types of structures reinforce this. Even the themes demand we seek partnerships across schools and so focus is looking inwards and not outwards. The research strategy of the University currently seems to drive us to seek collaborations within and across the University and there is little mention of having a strategy that reaches beyond the campuses. The aspect that is not covered here is the importance of building collaborative networks, still perhaps of one or two researchers, but with colleagues in other universities.
In order to develop a comparative dimension to work international collaboration would seem of high value, particularly in many areas of social science. Is there not the danger in focusing on management within the University that we forget to look beyond, to be nurturing the contacts we gain at conferences, through editing or publishing in special editions or collections, and building a broader network. If we do not talk of these things they may simply be ignored, perceived as not part of the strategy so not of value.
Many of the funding bodies now wish to see work of an inter-disciplinary nature, that has an international or global dimension and involves partners across different institutions (not all academic) and nations. Could, perhaps should, there not be more discussion of how this is achieved rather than retaining this focus on how we should develop internally?
As someone who has recently looked into the research structure of the Media School I can say that I have seen Research Groups linked to Academic Groups, Research Groups linked to Research Centres. Some work, some dont. Research structure is an important consideration and there is real value in providing researchers with a home, and being able to identify areas that are and aren’t performing.
Perhaps the way forward should be to consider the question of what do we want to acheive and then look at the best structure (amongst other tihngs) to achieve this aim.
Interesting debate. Here is my two penny worth:
I personally feel very strongly that working in a research team is more productive than working as an individual. To me research centres are established stable research teams that are greater than the sum of their parts. Yes, cross centre working must be encouraged. The limited literature on how effective research teams/centres should be constructed shows that the highest quality of research comes from cross centre, cross national, cross institutional and cross sector partnerships. This is largely because of the complementary skills these overlaps bring to an innovative research project. However, having a centre structure does not mean that this does not occur. In fact it gives us a road map with which to plan our cross border forays. A centre structure does not mean that people are confined to impermeable silos that inhibit cross centre working that the first diagram suggests. Yes, I think it is a danger if centres are not managed correctly or if they are not managed at all. However, I believe if centre leads reflect carefully (and do a bit of research) on their research management skills, members can and do cross boundaries leading to enhanced research quality.
Along with many others in the university, I am into the concept of social capital: basically the benefits accrued to the individual or community through their group membership. These are the benefits individual researchers cannot access other than through being a centre/group member. In other words, research centres are an important source of social capital, into which individual researchers invest and reinvest and in which human (knowledge etc) and other forms of capital accrue. Think of the young, inexperienced researcher looking to learn how to engage in bidding and other research activity. How else can they learn these skills effectively, other than being part of a centre where this is done regularly and where they can learn in situ. A fluid structure proposed in the first diagram assumes that all members of the university are able to connect with each other, forming new and transient relationships, before moving onto the next project. This takes a skilled and confident academic to do so.
Research centres can also be viewed from the perspective of group identity. Researchers, as with any other group, manage their intergroup interactions through both their group and individual identities. Group identity is key to the way we interact with other groups (cross boundary working). Individuals need to feel their group is distinctive in some way to be able to interact with other groups in an effective and positive way. By being members of CeWQOL rather than the GKE, for example, and being able to see these centres as distinctive, should promote cross centre working rather than inhibit it.
Anyway, just some food for thought. Thanks for starting a good debate.
I’ve been reading a book about swarms, recently. Perhaps this might provide some insight into the collaborative research process…(or maybe not!) Here we are, lots of happy workers, producing an enormous termite mound as a result of our collective endeavour. (For ‘termite mound’, read ‘world-leading REF submission’ if you prefer). Some sociologists studying research communities have likened them to a swarm of bees, with the Queen bee directing the behaviour of the drones, who do the work – a bit like Matthew’s traditional scientific model, with the Professor at the centre of the hive. The latest research into bee behaviour, though, shows that they don’t operate this way at all. Rather, they are remarkably democratic. Some elegant experiments examining how bees choose a new hive has shown that it is the drones who make the decision. Each goes and surveys the available terrain, seeking out opportunities. They then return to the hive, and signal their choice to the other bees. Some of these then go out and check out the terrain for themselves, to make up their own minds. They then vote accordingly, and in the end the hive acts as one, moving to the new hive location all together – an amazing example of the behaviour of a ‘hive mind’ in action. This is achieved by the bees aligning themselves with a group – the one that is making the most noise about the hive location that they have chosen. Eventually the colony all moves off together, in the same direction, despite no-one telling them where to go. I’m not sure whether this tells us anything useful about how to organise research activity, but maybe there is merit in exhibiting collaborative behaviour that is truly adaptive. This depends most strongly not on the Queen (Professor) sat in the middle of the nest, disconnected from reality, and probably obsessed with maintaining their position in the colony, but with those active drones who know what is actually going on out there in the real world, and can inform the collective decision-making of their colleagues. So maybe we need to focus more on the process of research rather than the structure …. and place greater emphasis on the process of gathering and sharing of intelligence among members of the colony.
While it is always dangerous to talk of Queens and Drones due to the connotations, I completely agree with the broader point made here. The danger in organising structures for research is that they become restrictive and suggest we only do research that fit specific themes. Thus it suggests there are things we do not do; this may be true but it may depend more on perception (due to a theme’s title) rather than reality. The sharing of collective intelligence is, however, a much more fruitful course. Research funders seem to prioritise cross-institutional and cross-national research. Perhaps what we need is a series of BU workshops on areas of practice in research, from profile-building onwards, in order to broaden the range of skills we have across the institution and its component parts.