research supervisor responsibilities

Research management

Sponsored by

What does a research supervisor do?

Research supervisors must learn to be authentic mentors, as well as sharing their experience and knowledge. Robert Crammond reflects on his time in the role

Robert Crammond

• More on this topic

Elsevier helps researchers and healthcare professionals advance science and improve health outcomes for the benefit of society.

Discover elsevier.

Created in partnership with

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Change is coming, whether higher education likes it or not

Ai and assessment redesign: a four-step process, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn, upgrade your teaching: four instant improvement tips, why is no one listening.

Sharing expertise and experience of academia will come naturally to most academics, but acting as a source of developmental support might not, at least not initially.

Over the last decade, I’ve had the privilege of supervising many students at various stages of their academic journeys. Some have been undergraduate students working on their dissertations, some postgraduate master’s students, while others have been working on their doctoral theses. Here I share my advice based on what I’ve learned during my time as a research supervisor and the five key aspects of the supervisory role.

Set realistic goals

First, as supervisors embark on new projects, they should be realistic with their goals – and this is also the case for the supervisees. In short, a work-life balance must be met to ensure that progress is not at the expense of health and well-being. Setting appropriate milestones to effectively respond to the demands of the project is crucial. This should allow time for priorities to be met, while also putting welfare at the forefront.

• Five tips for building healthy academic collaborations
• How to change research cultures to support the well-being of PhD students
• No one agrees on what research leadership is, let alone how to do it well

Across the term or semester, confirm a number of mini-deadlines and ensure that simple catch-ups take place every seven to 10 days. I’ve found that setting these rules helps to reassure students and maintains their focus.

Communicate to gain context

It is vital that supervisors understand new and ongoing factors affecting their research. This appreciation of context, and engaging in conversation about it, both motivates researchers and increases the validity of the work in question. It also helps in understanding any gaps, problems or challenges within the topics. Students and new researchers will feel included and valued as they begin their investigations.

As a key starting point – ask relevant questions. What is the situation that this research topic concerns? Who is involved? What are the impacting factors and where can more information be found?

Be the mentor, not a research robot

Being knowledgeable is fundamental to being a successful and competent supervisor – but so is being relatable. Those you are working with need to know that you care about them not only as colleagues, but also as individuals. Be aware of (and willing to talk about) how the research journey affects each researcher and their family and how it can lead to sacrifices being made in day-to-day life. Being approachable builds strong working relationships and ultimately leads to a positive research culture.

Supervisors should emphasise that the journey has its ups and downs. They should encourage students and research groups to take time to relax, recharge and enjoy their hobbies and interests . A focus solely on work is not sensible or sustainable. The role of the supervisor is not merely about meeting research objectives – it’s about helping students become well-rounded and successful individuals.

Manage workloads

For many academics and research students, workload consists of both teaching and research and can feel rather intense. That’s not to mention role-specific duties, which obviously vary. Agreeing on what is the priority term-to-term results in working smarter and more efficiently. 

Consider the many responsibilities your team members are juggling and plan effectively. Target specific conferences or external engagement activities relevant to the research focus, to confirm writing projects and timelines for research within the calendar year.

Emphasise exposure and impact

Effective supervisors ensure that their students and groups are part – and feel part – of their research communities. They also ensure the work they are supervising is visible on the widest possible scale and that the supervisee understands why this is important. What is the purpose of research if it is not shared and placed firmly in the public sphere? If we are to make an impact on society, we must talk about what we are doing.

Pose the following questions to your supervisees at the beginning and end of the journey: What are the (expected) contributions of this research? What knowledge or subject area does this research advance? Where is the significant value? Most importantly, who benefits – and how?

Reflecting on my career as a research supervisor has helped me identify the challenges that need to be addressed in the role. Above all, being an authentic mentor who is approachable, takes workloads into consideration, prioritises work-life balance and provides reassurance will benefit everyone.

Robert Crammond is a senior lecturer at the University of the West of Scotland.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,  sign up for the Campus newsletter .

The iScanner app supports the academic community in information sharing and management

Change is coming, whether higher education likes it or not, artificial intelligence and academic integrity: striking a balance, contextual learning: linking learning to the real world, a diy guide to starting your own journal, ‘what colour is your english’.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

• How it works

The Supervisor’s Role in Developing your Research Skills

Published by Owen Ingram at August 1st, 2023 , Revised On August 1, 2023

An academic supervisor plays a pivotal role in shaping your research journey. The importance of an academic supervisor in the research process cannot be overstated. They mentor, guide, and advocate for the researcher, providing invaluable support and expertise throughout the journey. 

The role of an academic supervisor extends beyond overseeing the project because they play a crucial part in shaping the researcher’s growth, ensuring the integrity of the study, and maximising the chances of research success. Let’s explore it in detail. 

Why an Academic Supervisor is Essential in the Research Process?

Here are some key reasons why an academic supervisor is essential in the research process:

Expertise and Guidance

Academic supervisors bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table. They possess subject-specific expertise and are well-versed in research methodologies, design, and analysis. Their guidance helps researchers navigate complex theoretical frameworks, identify appropriate research methodologies, and develop a comprehensive understanding of the field.

Leveraging their Knowledge and Experience to Provide Guidance

An academic supervisor’s knowledge and experience are invaluable resources for researchers. They have extensive expertise in their field and can provide guidance based on years of research and academic experience. Supervisors can leverage their knowledge to offer valuable insights and perspectives, helping researchers navigate the complexities of their research journey.

Refining Research Objectives

An academic supervisor helps researchers define and refine their research objectives. They assist in aligning research goals with the broader scope of the field, ensuring that the study contributes to existing knowledge. With their expertise, supervisors provide valuable insights that refine the research questions, making them more focused, relevant, and impactful.

Assisting in Refining Methodologies

Academic supervisors assist researchers in refining their research objectives to ensure they are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). They work closely with researchers to evaluate the feasibility and relevance of the research objectives, considering the available resources and time constraints. 

Supervisors also provide valuable input in selecting appropriate research methodologies, considering the nature of the research questions, the data required, and ethical considerations. 

Provide Advice on Data Collection, Analysis, and Interpretation

Providing advice on data collection, analysis, and interpretation is a crucial role of an academic supervisor in the research process. Here’s how supervisors offer guidance in each of these areas:

Data Collection

Supervisors provide advice on selecting appropriate data collection methods and instruments. They help researchers identify the most suitable techniques, such as surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments, based on the research objectives and the nature of the data required. 

They offer insights on sampling strategies, data collection protocols, and ethical considerations. Supervisors also assist in ensuring data quality by guiding on maintaining consistency, accuracy, and reliability throughout the data collection process.

Data Analysis

Supervisors guide researchers in selecting appropriate data analysis methods to address their research questions. They provide advice on statistical analysis techniques, qualitative data coding and analysis approaches, or mixed methods analysis frameworks. 

Supervisors assist in understanding the assumptions and limitations of the chosen analysis methods, helping researchers apply them correctly. They may also recommend relevant software or tools for data analysis and assist in interpreting the results.

Interpretation of Findings

Supervisors support researchers in interpreting the findings derived from data analysis. They help researchers identify patterns, trends, and relationships within the data. Supervisors offer insights into the significance and implications of the findings, guiding researchers to draw valid conclusions. 

They encourage critical thinking and assist in connecting the research findings with existing theories, literature, or practical applications.

Quality Assurance

Supervisors play a vital role in ensuring data quality and research integrity. They advise on quality assurance measures during data collection, such as piloting surveys or conducting inter-rater reliability checks. Supervisors review the methodology, calculations, and interpretations during data analysis to ensure accuracy and rigour. They help researchers address potential biases, outliers, or confounding factors to enhance the validity and reliability of the research findings.

Methodological Support

Developing a robust research methodology is critical to the success of a study. Academic supervisors assist researchers in designing suitable methodologies and research frameworks. They offer guidance on data collection techniques, sampling strategies, and data analysis methods. This support ensures that the research is methodologically sound and aligns with established standards in the field.

Feedback and Quality Assurance

Academic supervisors are crucial in providing ongoing feedback throughout the research process. They review drafts, provide constructive criticism, and offer suggestions for improvement. This feedback helps researchers identify strengths and weaknesses, refine their arguments, and enhance the overall quality of their work. Supervisors ensure that the research maintains high standards and adheres to academic rigour.

Troubleshooting and Problem-Solving

Research projects often encounter challenges and obstacles. An academic supervisor serves as a troubleshooter, assisting researchers in identifying and addressing potential issues. They offer guidance and advice on overcoming obstacles, helping researchers navigate complexities, and providing alternative perspectives to problem-solving.

Ethical Considerations

Ethics play a vital role in research. Academic supervisors guide ethical considerations, ensuring researchers follow ethical guidelines and protocols. They assist in obtaining necessary approvals from research ethics committees, protecting participants’ rights, and maintaining research integrity.

Professional Development

Academic supervisors focus on the immediate research project and contribute to the researcher’s long-term professional development. They provide mentorship, helping researchers enhance their research skills, critical thinking abilities, and academic writing. They advise publishing research findings, networking opportunities, and career advancement.

Is your research paper plagiarism-free?

Find out with our plagiarism checker today and save yourself from embarrassment. 💁‍, networking and collaboration.

Supervisors often have extensive networks within the academic community. They facilitate networking opportunities and collaborations, connecting researchers with experts and potential collaborators. This exposure broadens researchers’ horizons, fosters interdisciplinary perspectives, and opens doors for future collaborations and opportunities.

Publication and Dissemination Support

Publication and dissemination support from academic supervisors is crucial for researchers to share their findings with the wider academic community. Supervisors guide preparing research papers for publication, including manuscript organisation, formatting, and citation styles. 

They assist in selecting suitable journals or conferences for submission and offer insights into the publication process. Supervisors may review and provide feedback on drafts, helping researchers improve the clarity and coherence of their work. 

They also encourage researchers to present their findings at conferences or seminars, providing opportunities for networking and knowledge exchange. With their support, supervisors help researchers effectively disseminate their research, increasing its impact and visibility.

Striking a Balance Between Autonomy and Guidance in the Research Process

Striking a balance between autonomy and guidance in the research process is crucial for researchers. While autonomy allows for independent thinking, creativity, and ownership of the research, guidance from academic supervisors provides essential support and expertise. 

Supervisors offer insights, advice, and feedback to ensure the research stays on track and aligns with established standards. They provide a valuable external perspective, help researchers navigate challenges, and ensure methodological rigour. 

Balancing autonomy and guidance allows researchers to take ownership of their work while benefiting from the experience and expertise of their supervisors, ultimately leading to a successful and impactful research outcome.

Encourage Independent Thinking and Decision-Making 

Encouraging independent thinking and decision-making is vital to the academic supervisor’s role in developing researchers. By fostering a supportive environment, supervisors empower researchers to explore their ideas, think critically, and make informed decisions. They provide opportunities for researchers to engage in independent research and encourage them to challenge existing knowledge. 

Supervisors help researchers develop their analytical and problem-solving skills through constructive feedback and guidance, promoting autonomy in the research process.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the role of an academic supervisor in developing research skills.

Academic supervisors are crucial in guiding and nurturing research skills by providing mentorship, offering advice on methodologies, and promoting critical thinking and problem-solving abilities.

How does an academic supervisor support the development of research skills?

Supervisors support the development of research skills by providing guidance on research methodologies, offering feedback and constructive criticism, encouraging independent thinking, and providing opportunities for professional development and networking.

What impact does an academic supervisor have on enhancing research skills?

An academic supervisor enhances research skills by sharing knowledge and expertise, helping researchers refine their research objectives and methodologies, promoting effective data collection and analysis techniques, and fostering critical thinking and academic growth.

How does collaboration with an academic supervisor contribute to developing research skills?

Collaboration with an academic supervisor provides researchers with mentorship, guidance, and opportunities for learning. Through ongoing communication and feedback, researchers can develop their research skills, improve their ability to analyse data, and critically enhance their overall research capabilities.

You May Also Like

Where to find the perfect supervisor? How to find an experienced supervisor who has the same interests as you? How can you evaluate your potential supervisor? 

Regular and effective communication with your supervisor is essential to the success of any research project or dissertation. During the research process, these sessions offer an opportunity to obtain direction, support, and feedback. 

Master the art of communication with your supervisor. Uncover essential tips for building a strong relationship, expressing ideas clearly, and climbing the career ladder.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

• Research degrees
• Your study experience
• Responsibilities and expectations

What is the role of your supervisor?

2 Minute read

The supervisory relationship lies at the heart of your research experience. Learn about the role of your supervisors and why they’re the key to your success.

Here are the answers to your frequently asked questions.

You need at least two supervisors, with one designated as the principal supervisor.

• To assist and support you in your study
• To provide helpful feedback
• To ensure you stay on track

But they are not expected to take charge of your research or project. As a graduate researcher, you are expected to be self-motivated and proactive.

Whether you want to join an established project with an assigned supervisory team or find supervisors for your own research project, the questions below may help you determine who is best placed to support your research journey:

• Do they have expertise relevant to your intended research project?
• Do they share your passion for your chosen topic?
• Are they well connected with other researchers?
• Have they developed skills in people management and mentoring?
• What is their reputation amongst current and past PhD candidates? Discover more about their supervision style, availability and accessibility, and the value of their feedback.
• Will you work well together? Consider your respective personalities and communication styles.

You should meet with your supervisors at least monthly. It is essential to build an effective working relationship, and this relies on frequent communication.

Your supervisors form part of your advisory committee. This is a broader group that provides support and advice, and might include people with specific technical or industry expertise. This committee also has a formal role in monitoring your progress. Your advisory committee should comprise at least three members, including your supervisors and the advisory committee chair.

Further detail on the roles and responsibilities of supervisors and advisory committee members is located in the Graduate Research Training Policy .

First published on 17 February 2022.

Keep reading

University life.

Learn more about campus life at the University of Melbourne. And discover why cosmopolitan Melbourne is a great place to live.

Learning and development

Develop your professional and academic skills by participating in our valuable courses, workshops and programs.

Safety and support

Learn how we’re working to create a safe, inclusive and respectful community at the University.

What Makes a Good Research Supervisor?

Understanding Expectations

For research supervisors, the role is assigned as part of a broader and more complex faculty role that may include teaching responsibilities, administrative committee assignments, research development, and the fundraising and writing tasks that can accompany that research. In that context, being a supervisor may not be perceived as such a central role as it may for the supervisee.

For research supervisees, the expectations they may have of their respective supervisors can often be guided by good or bad experiences with prior supervisors, but they will typically include such variables as commitment, accessibility, regularity of communication, and supportiveness.

A Tailored Solution

With those common variables identified, it would seem that an individual supervisory relationship would be fairly straightforward—just make the necessary fine adjustments to each of those variables based on the displayed needs of the individual supervisee—some will need more support, more frequent communication, etc. However, if it really is that easy, why do so many postgraduate research students complain about supervisors who don’t “get” them, or who appear to be simply “going through the motions,” or who don’t seem to care if they graduate or not?

Supervisor relationship contracts may be built on clear outcomes to be achieved (graduation, research publication, etc.), but for those students being supervised, success comes in the form of “walking the talk.” In practice, this means making an investment of time to learn about the individual needs of the student and then adjusting your behavior accordingly.

The Functions of Supervision

Alfred Kadushin’s work on theories of supervision in social work (which is built on the earlier work of John Dawson) grouped the functions of supervision into three distinct areas:

• Educational—helping the student achieve the necessary competence in research methodology to conduct independent research upon graduation
• Administrative—guiding the student through the necessary internal and external protocols of a postdoctoral research project
• Supportive—providing an appropriate level of emotional support for the student to feel capable in tackling a complex research project. This can vary from reassurance to inspirational and even “tough love” reminders of expectations if needed.

Soft Skills

For experienced faculty who prefer not to be categorized by academic theory, good supervisory skills can best be found in the realm of “soft” managerial skills. Remaining empathetic, flexible, and sensitive to the needs of the aspiring research professionals under your care will put you on the path to success. There are no guarantees that there won’t be some rough spots, especially when a passionate researcher resists a suggested reorientation of a topic to which he or she has been committed since high school, but if a culture of mutual respect and professionalism has been established from the outset, the experience should be a positive one for all involved.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Career Corner
• PhDs & Postdocs

When Your Thesis Advisor Asks You to Quit

I was two months into the third year of my PhD when it happened. In…

How a Mentor Can Be the Wizard to a Researcher’s Success

Have you ever had a mentor? Alternatively, have you ever been a mentor to others?…

• Publishing Research
• Understanding Reviews

Are Peer Reviews Reports Being Written By Early Career Researchers?

Peer review seeks to ensure scientific integrity. All good journals use peer review to decide…

Tips on Developing an Effective Undergraduate Research Program

Undergraduates can partake in research and they do so regularly. These opportunities are good for…

4 Crucial Tips on How to Effectively Mentor Graduate Students

What is the Role of a Mentor? In graduate schools, students often find themselves in…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Reporting Research
• Industry News
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

Which among these features would you prefer the most in a peer review assistant?

University | A to Z | Departments

• York Graduate Research School
• Policy, forms and documents
• Policy on Research Degrees
• 6. Responsibilities of PGRs and supervisors
• About the York Graduate Research School
• Contact YGRS
• YGRS newsletter
• Academic progression
• Responsible research
• Support and wellbeing
• Researcher development
• Public engagement opportunities
• PGR feedback
• Research funding

6. Responsibilities of research students and supervisors

The responsibilities of PGRs include:

• taking responsibility for their own personal and professional development, including, where possible, recognising when they need help and seeking it in a timely manner;
• maintaining (a joint responsibility with supervisors) regular contact with supervisors (both full-time and part-time PGRs are required to attend formal supervisory meetings at least every six to seven weeks and more frequently if a Graduate School Board prescribes);
• preparing adequately for meetings with supervisors and Thesis Advisory Panels, and for progression reviews;
• setting and keeping to timetables and deadlines, including planning and submitting required work and generally maintaining satisfactory progress with the programme of research;
• making supervisors aware of any specific needs or circumstances likely to affect their work;
• attending any development opportunities (research-related and other) that have been identified when agreeing their development needs with their supervisors;
• adhering to the University’s regulations, policies and guidance regarding PGR programmes, including those relating to health and safety, and intellectual property;
• conducting research with integrity, in accordance with the University’s policy framework (including the Code of practice and principles for good ethical governance, the Code of Practice on Research Integrity and the Research Data Management Policy) and any legal compliance and/or funder requirements;
• ensuring (a joint responsibility with supervisors) that appropriate ethical approval is obtained before research commences;
• maintaining records of their professional development.

The responsibilities of the main supervisor of a PGR include:

• introducing the PGR to the department, its facilities and procedures, and to other PGRs and staff;
• providing satisfactory advice and guidance on the conduct of the research and on the preparation of the thesis;
• monitoring the progress of the PGR’s research programme, reporting on progress to the departmental Graduate School Board, and ensuring the PGR is aware of the need to submit the thesis by the specified deadline;
• encouraging the PGR to participate fully in the planning of their research and to take personal responsibility for the decisions made;
• establishing and maintaining (a joint responsibility with the PGR) regular contact with the PGR, including during any periods in which the PGR is working on their research away from the University, and being accessible to the PGR to give advice;
• having input into the assessment of the PGR’s development needs, and ensuring that instruction is provided in research methods and other academic skills relevant to the PGR’s research;
• monitoring and supporting the PGR’s professional development ( see section 9 );
• providing timely, constructive and effective feedback on the PGR’s work and overall progress within the programme;
• ensuring that the PGR has a clear understanding of the need to exercise probity and to conduct research according to the University’s policy framework (including the Code of practice and principles for good ethical governance, Code of Practice on Research Integrity and the Research Data Management Policy) and any legal compliance and/or funder requirements, and of the implications of research misconduct;
• ensuring that, in the case of PGRs undertaking laboratory work, there is an appropriate level of supervision and monitoring, including regular checks on data-recording and notebooks and occasional checks on the day-to-day conduct of experiments;
• ensuring (a joint responsibility with the PGR) that appropriate ethical approval is obtained before research commences; 
• ensuring that the PGR is aware of relevant sources of advice within the University, including those relating to careers guidance;
• ensuring that they meet their responsibilities to the PGR under the University’s Health, Safety and Welfare Policy Statement and Arrangements ;
• providing effective pastoral support and, where appropriate, referring the PGR to other sources of such support within the University. Also, monitoring a PGR's Student Support Plan (if applicable);
• helping and encouraging the PGR to interact with others working in the field of research (for example, encouraging the PGR to attend relevant conferences and supporting him/her in seeking funding for such events), and to keep themselves informed of developments within their subject;
• where appropriate, helping and encouraging the PGR to submit conference papers and articles to refereed journals;
• maintaining the necessary supervisory expertise;
• exercising sensitivity to the diverse needs of individual PGRs, including international PGRs and those with a disability.

Although supervisors may encourage their supervisees to seek advice on particular academic topics from other members of staff, the supervisor has the primary responsibility for directing the research to a satisfactory conclusion. It is, therefore, essential that the supervisor should approve the general content and planning of the research.

Policy sections 1. Introduction 2. The criteria for the award of PGR degrees 3. The research environment 4. Selection, admission and induction of PGRs 5. Supervision 6. Responsibilities of PGRs and supervisors 7. Periods of enrolment, changes to PGRs' status and personal circumstances (including illness), working hours and holidays 8. Progress and review arrangements 9. Development of research and other skills 10. Evaluation of PGR programmes 11. Responsible research and academic integrity 12. Assessment 13. Dissemination of research results, intellectual property rights and responsibilities 14. PGR complaints and appeals 15. Research away from York (excluding PGRs on distance learning PGR programmes) 16. Arrangements for non-York PGRs Appendices Appendix 1: Policy on the recording of second progress review meetings and oral examinations for research degrees Appendix 2: Policy on PhD/EngD and MPhil PGR progression Appendix 3: PGR Academic Misconduct policy Appendix 4: Paid parental leave policy Appendix 5: Policy framework for distance learning PGR programmes Appendix 6: Policy framework for collaborative off-site and collaborative split-site PGR programmes Appendix 7: Policy framework for integrated PhD programmes Appendix 8: Policy and process for the appointment of examiners for research degrees Appendix 9: Guidance for Examiners on Degree Outcomes Appendix 10: Policy on Transparency of Authorship in PGR Programmes, including generative AI, proofreading and translation Appendix 11: Policy on Granting PGR Programme Extensions in Exceptional Circumstances

University of York , Heslington , York , YO10 5DD , UK Tel: work +44 (0) 1904 320000 | Fax: fax +44 (0)1904 323433

Legal statements | Privacy | Cookies | Accessibility © University of York | Modify | Direct Edit

Resume Builder

• Resume Experts
• Search Jobs
• Search for Talent
• Employer Branding
• Outplacement

Research Manager Job Description

Research manager duties & responsibilities.

To write an effective research manager job description, begin by listing detailed duties, responsibilities and expectations. We have included research manager job description templates that you can modify and use.

Sample responsibilities for this position include:

Research Manager Qualifications

Qualifications for a job description may include education, certification, and experience.

Licensing or Certifications for Research Manager

List any licenses or certifications required by the position: MBA, ACRP, IRB, OSP, SAS, CITI, CRS, CPR, RHIT, RHIA

Education for Research Manager

Typically a job would require a certain level of education.

Employers hiring for the research manager job most commonly would prefer for their future employee to have a relevant degree such as Bachelor's and Master's Degree in Economics, Education, Management, Marketing, Business, Leadership, Directing, Statistics, Science, Social Sciences

Skills for Research Manager

Desired skills for research manager include:

Desired experience for research manager includes:

Research Manager Examples

• Microsoft Word (.docx) .DOCX
• PDF Document (.pdf) .PDF
• Image File (.png) .PNG
• Analysis of data from syndicated studies
• Track and analyze data from both online and social media outlets
• Extract (with Analyst) and analyze the distribution of IFC in all Nielsen markets that will allow affiliate sales to increase revenue
• Analyses of IFC viewership/channel dayparts based on data beyond traditional resources
• Manages and guides Marketing Research Analysts and Representatives
• Create relevant data points and shape competitive story using syndicated research tools
• Lead analysis across the breadth of social metrics (sentiment, volume, ) using complex math/ statistical models to help unpack these metrics, driving understanding and use
• Work with internal/external stakeholders to understand business needs, process requirements and business problems and provide guidance on how to think/understand social metric movements
• Assist in project design for program and brand testing, other projects as needed
• Contributes to study design and coordinates implementation options with program partners
• Production research subject matter expertise, including a good understanding of advanced metrics and their usage in storytelling
• Experience working with a research full-screen builder and ENPS
• Experience working with article search databases and software applications that extract and analyze data from primary sources and statistical applications
• Has a proven ability and expertise in insight generation that extends over 5 years in market research (preferably with agency experience) with deep expertise in quantitative research
• An good understanding and experience of the Business-to-Business
• Ability to take a research project through all phases of the research life cycle from identifying objectives and developing approach to data/information collection such as surveys and in-depth interviews, to analysis and final presentation of results
• Can build strong relationships and work with Research team colleagues to support join up research outputs where required
• Able to work in a time pressured environment
• Able to drive projects on their own confidently
• Has experience of working in research
• Conceptualize research designs to address key business questions by implementing qualitative and quantitative research approaches to drive actionable insights and client implications
• Oversee the logistics and coordination of research, providing direction throughout the life cycle of a project (programming/scripting, data collection/fieldwork, data processing)
• Leverage story-telling skills (integrating multiple data sources including qual/quant results, secondary data sources, trend information and data analytics) to prepare highly polished presentations that deliver insightful, strategic, and actionable insights
• Identify and articulate residential real estate trends and market conditions
• Create reports that clearly communicate the state of the market and the competitive environment for company properties
• Communicate findings to colleagues, senior management, clients, and financial institutions
• Must have passion/interest in television content and distribution strategy
• Must possess strong strategic thinking and analytical skills
• Must be able to clearly articulate complex content to diverse stakeholders
• Detailed knowledge of TV and digital data measurements systems TechEdge, Omniture and Comscore
• Fluent in Nielsen NPOWER
• MA/MS Degree in education, psychology, or statistics with specialization in Adolescent Literacy or Early Childhood research with a Ph.D
• Submit documents to research support committees
• Review and query data in database in collaboration with the Coordinating and Data Management Center (CDMC)
• Manager data analysis for presentations and publications as directed by P.I
• Schedule and prepare for meetings as necessary
• Order and send supplies to the satellite sites for data and bio-sample collection
• Update and maintain INSPPIRE webpage, Wiki page (study resource for INSPPIRE PIs and study coordinators)
• Obtain and monitor access to Wiki page
• Oversee the arrangement of travel for the Primary Investigator (PI) to annual meetings and coordinate with other site PIs
• 2+ years’ of marketing research, research design or project management experience
• Proven ability to use logical reasoning and excellent communication skills (verbal and written) to solve problems and execute design of projects
• Experience managing a small team in a complex environment
• An interest in the sharing economy and an understanding of cities and public policy
• Maintaining enthusiasm and a calm demeanor in stressful situations
• Experience with survey creation, administration, and analysis
• Experience with broad marketing data (CRM, digital, social, direct response, brand, PR)
• Must have advanced computers skills and a high level of proficiency in Nielsen and other audience research software (Star, Nielsen nPower, Rentrak, Google Analytics)
• Supports STP process
• Encourages technology scouting and project creation
• Resolve conflicts between scientists/engineers & customers, in order to reach optimal transfer of results to BUs
• Assists Local Department Manager in people management, including competence development and budgeting
• Recruit best in class researchers, provide mentoring and make plans for their professional growth
• Coordinates, leads and writes proposals for 3rd party funding opportunities
• Build and maintain an up-to-date market intelligence database by systematically gathering, analyzing and compiling all business structure and performance data
• Must be able to make programmatic recommendations to the appropriate research staff/volunteer committees
• An integral function of the position will be the production of case-for-support materials, research productivity documents, Field summary documents
• Lead, design and manage OR related studies commissioned by the UK affiliate liaising with the clinical operations team on the most appropriate outcomes
• Understanding of biochemistry or protein separation
• Bachelor Degree or Master Degree from top university
• 5 - 8 years experience in market research or related function in either agency side or client side
• Excellent English and Mandarin skills both in written and oral
• Have sound knowledge of overall market research technology and be able to apply to marketing / business practice and strategy
• Be able to think logically and insightfully
• Maintain Day to Day account relationships with clients, and external data partners
• Manage all phases of the research process from study kick off to presentation and follow-up
• Co‐ordinate trials of new features and ongoing developments to evolve portfolio of products by contributing feature suggestions, improvements and ideas
• Solve customer reported issues in a timely manner, by working closely with team members from other departments
• Consult with and offer support to faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and students in developing their research proposals
• Analyze data, create reports/tables, review trends, and make program improvement recommendations
• Responsible for all data, research activity, and relationships with the assigned markets/regions
• Understanding of market drivers and activity to ensure the continuous improvement of data, relationship, revenue, and retention
• Interprets results and develops materials (reports, articles, ) to summarize findings and communicate the value of Skyfactor projects to support marketing and client services efforts
• Analyze the training needs of project teams and identify relevant training material/ courses to address these needs
• With exposure in qualitative and quantitative research, and has interest to handle and grow skills
• Knowledge in MS office (Word, Excel, Powerpoint)
• Able to manage assigned tasks independently
• Able to perform/execute project implementation requirements
• Able to conduct intermediate qualitative or quantitative analyses that aid in the identification of client solutions with senior/project manager supervision
• Able to craft portions of project presentations to clients with senior supervision

Related Job Descriptions

Create a Resume in Minutes with Professional Resume Templates

I am an Employer

I am a candidate.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Find the Right Research Supervisor for Your Research

Deciding to pursue a PhD is a significant decision one takes for his/her career. And before starting on the doctoral journey, one needs to consider many factors like identifying their research topic, choosing the right university and department, and most importantly, knowing how to find a research supervisor who will be able to guide you in the right manner. The right PhD supervisor can strongly influence the success and quality of your degree and consequently, makes a significant impact on your academic career. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that you know how to find a research supervisor for your PhD program.

Table of Contents

Why a good supervisor is an invaluable asset

Obtaining a PhD is not easy and is often fraught with challenges. Hence, finding a research supervisor who will support you when your experiments fail, encourage you when you are plagued with self-doubt and guide you towards successfully presenting your thesis is vital. The roles and responsibilities of a research supervisor are to guide you through your research journey, and there are many ways they can help you do so. They can:

• help you refine your research ideas
• identify the knowledge gaps in the field of study and guide you through difficulties
• offer valuable insights and provide advice on the most effective research methodologies to use.
• help you to develop necessary research skills such as, critical thinking, analysis, and interpretation to conduct a successful research project.
• offer you emotional and academic support in the ups and downs of your doctoral journey.

Hence, it is very critical to spend time finding a PhD supervisor who will be a great fit for your research project.

How to find a research supervisor that fits your needs

There are certain qualities of a good research supervisor that you will have to look for, in your own supervisor. Here are some basic things you should look for.

Choose an expert in your subject area: One of the most critical factors to consider when choosing a PhD supervisor is their research expertise. A good place to start your search for a good PhD supervisor would be the faculty profiles of universities and research institutes. Look for faculty members who have focused expertise in your research field and whose research interests align with your own. An ideal PhD supervisor must be someone who has authored a good number of articles, chapters, and books. This indicates that your supervisor is up-to-date on recent developments in your field and can provide you with the guidance and support you will need to write your thesis.

Look for someone whose mentoring methods match your learning style: If you are thinking about the questions to ask research supervisors, ask them about their mentoring style. Take time to learn as much as possible about them, ask them questions especially about their thought process, past work, and current projects. Also, try to understand the proposed supervisor’s mentoring style and ensure that it matches your learning style and preferences .

Consider personality traits and communication abilities: A PhD supervisor who is supportive, approachable, and possesses good communication skills can make a significant difference in your doctoral journey. While some supervisors can be hands-off and may offer minimal guidance, there are others who are more involved and will provide detailed feedback and guidance when required. You want to find a PhD supervisor who is easy to talk to , listens to your concerns and questions, and is respectful of your ideas and opinions.

Evaluate the success of past students and ask for feedback: Check the track record of your proposed PhD supervisor.  Find their previous students and see if they were able to complete their PhD on time. Were they able to publish in top-tier journals? Were they successful in securing academic positions? Answers to these questions will help you determine if they are a good fit for you. You can also talk to other students and faculty members in your department to get recommendations and insights into different supervisors.

Remember, finding the right supervisor goes beyond their reputation or academic achievements. It is essential to assess their mentoring style, availability, and willingness to invest in your growth as a researcher. A supportive and collaborative supervisor can provide invaluable guidance, enhance your research skills, and open doors to new opportunities.

Choose wisely, collaborate closely, and let your research thrive under the guidance of a supportive and knowledgeable supervisor.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of  research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

What is Research Impact: Types and Tips for Academics

Research in Shorts: R Discovery’s New Feature Helps Academics Assess Relevant Papers in 2mins 

Starting Research Supervision

Getting started as a research supervisor.

Research supervision is a complex form of teaching that involves a supervisor taking on a number of roles and responsibilities, often requiring adaptation over the life cycle of the doctorate. An important first step with new doctoral students is to engage in open discussion about working styles, practices, roles and responsibilities, and expectations that you have of them and they have of you. As the doctorate progresses, this discussion should be revisited and practices adapted. UCD’s guide to roles and responsibilities is highlighted in the Academic Regulations .

Establishing the student–supervisor relationship

Good, open communication is the key to managing the relationship between the supervisor and graduate research student. At the beginning of the research programme, both parties should negotiate how the relationship will function.

Conflict or tension can arise in situations where the expectations of the supervisor and/or student are unclear or mismatched, creating a common stumbling block for student progression. A thorough understanding of each person’s role is therefore critical to productive learning and successful outcomes.

As research supervisor, it is important that you highlight the expectations that you and the University have of the student and facilitate an open discussion where they can discuss their expectations of you as their supervisor.

Further information can be found in the Policy for Supervision of Research Degree Students .

Tips for establishing and clarifying expectations

Some of the areas that require clarification of mutual expectations include:

• Supervisor’s style / approach to supervision
• Format and frequency of supervision meetings
• Provision of feedback (written or oral, and frequency)
• Roles of RSP members
• Monitoring of progress
• Transfer Assessment formats and requirements
• Progression milestones
• Preferred forms of communication
• Methods of dissemination of research

Supervisors should also highlight that expectations may/will change between parties as the candidature progresses and that this topic should be revisited at key stages in the doctoral life cycle.

Key Resources  Checklist for Starting Supervision at UCD Checklist for Starting as a Research Student in UCD Appendix 2: Guidelines for good practice between research students and supervisors in the Graduate Research Student Handbook

Sample discussion points between supervisor and student

• What is a doctoral thesis?
• What is the UCD structured PhD?
• How will the doctorate be examined?
• What is meant by original contribution?
• Are there any good examples of doctoral theses in this discipline that the student could look at?
• Clarification of programme, student and supervisor expectations and responsibilities
• Are ethical considerations required in this research project?
• Who are the other members of the Research Studies Panel (RSP), what role does each member play and how often should the student meet the RSP?
• How will meetings be conducted (frequency, structure etc.)?
• What is the supervisor, student and University’s roles and responsibilities?
• What is the supervisors working style? What can the student expect, limits of contribution or direction given by supervisor or required from student
• How will progress of the research be monitored?
• How will written work be managed? For example, will it be submitted in draft or completed form? How frequently will feedback be provided? Will feedback be provided in written form?
• How will the research be disseminated?
• Authorship and Intellectual Property
• How is the STA (Stage Transfer Assessment) structured, when will it take place and what will be assessed?
• What is the membership of the TAP (Transfer Assessment Panel)?
• What supports are available to Doctoral students in UCD?
• What training is required to support the student’s research and professional development?
• Where can administrative issues be resolved?
• Who is the Graduate Research Contact for this School?
• Academic misconduct
• Conflict resolution processes at UCD
• Social and cultural activities for doctoral students in UCD

Note: All new academics to UCD will be required to undertake a Research Supervisor Induction Session. Information regarding these sessions will normally be communicated to new staff by HR. or via their respective Colleges.

Next page: Effective research supervision strategies

Further Resources

Documents and files.

View a repository of all documents that are most relevant to graduate research students and supervisors

Research Integrity at UCD

View information on Research Integrity policy, practices and training at UCD

UCD Teaching & Learning

Access a wealth of resources related to teaching and learning at UCD

A student's view of research supervision

Review the information provided to students about working with their supervisor

• Coming soon
• Recent changes
• Academic regulations
• Programme and module design and approval
• Assessment, awards and degree classification
• Personal tutoring, student support and development
• Concerns, complaints and appeals
• Registration and attendance
• Research degree policies and guidance
• Progression
• Supervision
• Research programme regulations
• Regulations for programmes which are not currently running
• Student engagement and representation
• Studies away from the University
• Professional Work Based Learning
• Contingency classification and progression regulations
• Exceptional classification and progression regulations
• Exceptional regulations: Covid-19

Responsibilities of the supervisor

This page contains detailed information about the role and responsibilities of a postgraduate supervisor, including research planning and thesis requirements. Its content is relevant to staff and students across all of the UK, China and Malaysia campuses.

Search the manual

Note:  In addition to the responsibilities detailed in this section, Postgraduate Student Advisors should also see the additional Covid-19 related responsibilities for Heads of Schools, PGR Directors and Supervisors for 2020-21. For more information, please consult the following:

Responsibilities of the Head of School, Supervisor and Director of PGR Programme - Additional guidance for the 2020-21 academic year in response to Covid-19

Supervisors will provide guidance and assistance to PGRs so that they may carry out their research and present their results to the best advantage.

Every supervisor and every PGR will be provided with guidance on their respective roles and responsibilities.

2. Role of the supervisor

The general role of supervisors is to guide and assist PGRs until submission of their thesis and any subsequent period of corrections, until such a point that examiners have reached a final decision on the award of the degree. The roles of supervisor and examiner are quite distinct, and it is not one of the roles of the supervisor to assess the thesis.

The specific roles of supervisors may differ depending on the academic discipline, Departmental practice and whether the member of staff is acting as lead, second, assistant, temporary or permanent supervisor. The lead supervisor (or delegate) will also consider requests for annual leave in line with School/Departmental policy.

3. Role of the assistant supervisor

Many postdoctoral research staff, level 4 Research Officers and research technicians make valuable contributions towards the supervision of the University’s PGRs.

The formal appointment of such staff as assistant supervisors as part of a supervisory team is intended to recognise and acknowledge this contribution and to identify the roles and responsibilities of assistant supervisors in order that this is clear to the candidate and all members of the supervisory team. 

Assistant supervisors are responsible for: 

• providing regular support and advice to PGRs. This may include guidance on welfare matters and health and safety.
• providing guidance on how to use equipment or specific research techniques and methods.
• helping PGRs to resolve difficulties they encounter and/or direct them to others who can assist.
• providing PGRs with informal feedback on their written work and/or presentations.
• where applicable, contributing to the reporting of progress of PGRs, noting that the level of involvement with this will be agreed, in advance, with the lead and co-supervisor(s).
• encouraging PGRs to disseminate their research.
• engaging with professional development opportunities to develop their supervisory practice including any mandatory training requirements.
• ensuring they are familiar with policies and processes applicable to research degrees.

4. Continuing professional development

All supervisors must undertake continuing professional development, so that their work as a supervisor is supported.

Supervisors should take the initiative in updating their knowledge and skills by participating in a range of appropriate activities and sharing good practice.

More information on support for research supervisors can be found here:

Researcher Academy

5. Documentation check

Includes:  responsibilities

At the outset the supervisor should check that the candidate has received information sent by the University concerning registration and that they have registered for that session.

Before or at initial registration or, at the latest within 4 weeks of initial registration, supervisors should check that all their PGRs have received copies of essential documentation relevant to their research studies or have been informed about where to locate them on the web. As a minimum, this should include: information about registration and services, the School Handbook, and any relevant safety advice.

For more information about registration, please consult the following:

Student Services - registration

6. Research plan

Includes: assistance; designing a programme of research; for full-time doctoral students

Supervisors will assist their PGRs to plan their research studies, including helping them to define their research topic; to identify schemes and specific tasks; to identify the relevant research literature, databases and other relevant sources, and to be aware of the standards in the discipline.

The supervisor and candidate should design a programme of research in which (subject to research progress and taking into account special cases) all or much of the thesis will have been written up by the candidate by the end of their period of registered study. The design of the programme of research should not at the outset plan to include any period of thesis pending that the candidate is entitled to. 

For full-time doctoral candidates on a 3 year programme, it is expected that the completion of the entire doctoral examination process is completed within 4 years. The PGR may need to register for some taught modules or attend research training courses. The supervisor will advise them how to do this.

7. Advising on regulations

Includes: understanding and knowledge; responsibilities

Supervisors should have a reasonable knowledge and understanding of the University's regulations governing research study and the University, Faculty and Departmental procedures governing research study and supervision.

They are required to advise their PGRs on these regulations and procedures or, if they feel a question is outside their knowledge, to direct their PGR to other sources such as Student Services (or Central Administration at UNM and the Graduate School at UNNC).

Supervisors also have a responsibility to ensure that other members of the supervisory team are kept informed of the candidate’s progress, and any issues which may be having an impact on their programme.

8. Advising on services and facilities

Includes: responsibilities; review of PGR needs

Supervisors should have a reasonable knowledge of and be able to advise their PGRs on the availability of the University's academic services and facilities (for example library and computing facilities) and how to make use of them.

The supervisors in conjunction with the PGR should keep under review the facilities which are required in order to carry out the research and make these needs known to the Head of School.

9. Minimum number of supervisions

Includes: responsibility to provide appropriate and regular supervision; requirements for part-time PGRs

Supervisors are responsible for providing appropriate and regular supervision for their PGRs until submission of their thesis and any subsequent period of corrections, until such a point that examiners have reached a final decision on the award of the degree. They are also responsible for being accessible at mutually convenient times to listen and offer advice.

Students and supervisors are jointly responsible for arranging the supervision meetings.

Supervisors must provide their part-time candidates with a minimum of 6 recorded supervisions a year and their full-time candidates with a minimum of 12 recorded supervisions a year. 

These supervisory meetings must be at least monthly for full time candidates and two-monthly for part time candidates. This is based on calendar months. Note, it is expected that in many cases the actual number of meetings between supervisors and candidates may exceed these minima. 

If it is not possible for a meeting to take place as scheduled, the meeting should be re-arranged for the next available opportunity.   

If no meetings are possible in any given month (or two months for part time students), the supervisor is responsible to ensure that the reason for the missed meeting is recorded appropriately. These reports should be regularly monitored by the School. University staff will review the missed meeting reports on a case by case basis, particularly for PGRs are at risk of breaching visa and immigration requirements, to see if any additional support is required. These requirements may also be modified under the rules for supervising students working off-site. 

For students who are missing meetings, or who are not meeting the meeting minima requirements, the regulations governing attendance and engagement should be reviewed:

10. Format for supervisions

Includes: definition; purpose

A 'supervision meeting' is considered to be a any simultaneous contact between the supervisor(s) and PGR candidate for an academic purpose. It is important that at the supervision meetings the PGR’s progress to date and/or the future direction of their research or thesis writing is discussed. It is also necessary that these discussions must be summarised in writing so that they are available if required, for example for audit purposes, or to aid student wellbeing or support. These written reports must meet the minimum number requirements as detailed earlier. 

There is no specified format for these meetings.  For example, a daily chat at the lab bench and/or a pre-scheduled sit down meeting would meet these criteria, as long as a monthly report with a progress overview is still submitted. Group meetings of PGRs and/or seminars would be acceptable as long as the PGR’s progress to date and/or the future direction of their research or thesis writing is discussed.   

A supervision meeting should typically take place as a face-to-face meeting, but can also include meetings conducted online, such as on Microsoft Teams. The exception to this is where the PGR is in the UK on a student visa, unless the student has been given formal permission to study at a different location, supervision meetings must be face-to-face and on campus.

11. Supervision record

Includes:  reporting needs; annual review of PGRs

In order that proper audit of supervision provision can be carried out, so that supervisors may undertake continuous monitoring of their PGR’s progress, and records of this progress monitoring are available for formal Progression Review, supervisors are required to ensure the maintenance of a supervision record of at least the minimum number and frequency of supervision meetings a year (see Section 9 above).   

Supervisors should advise their PGRs on the procedures for monitoring their progress which are described in the section of this Quality Manual entitled Progression Review of research students.

These include:

(i)  Supervision Records - attendance at supervision sessions and completion of supervision records;

(ii)  Progression Review - formal review of progress towards meeting the required outcomes, and assessment of whether the outcomes will be met in the required time. Completion of the Progression Review forms. 

(iii) MPhil and doctoral registration - procedures for upgrading or downgrading candidates and for confirming MPhil or doctoral registration.

Supervisors may, from time to time, be required to provide reports on their PGR’s progress for other purposes and to other agencies, for example, the Research Councils and other sponsors. Such reports should be provided within the required deadline to ensure, in particular, that the continuation of candidate’s funding by outside agencies is not compromised.

For more information about the Progression Review of research students, please consult the following:

Progression Review of research students

12. Training needs

Includes: discussing personal, academic, and professional skills; PGR training programme; research ethics; Code of research conduct and research ethics 

The supervisor should discuss with the PGR what personal, academic, and professional skills training they require in order to complete their research degree and to provide a skills base for a future career.

The supervisor should agree with the candidate a research training programme which is compatible with the PGR's needs and which is achievable in relation to the research commitments within the limits of their registered period of study, making it clear where attendance at training courses is compulsory or voluntary. This programme should be reviewed each year.

The supervisors should take reasonable steps to ensure that the PGR’s training needs are met. Normally such training will be delivered within the University and the supervisor should, therefore, be aware of any research training offered through the Researcher Academy, the Doctoral Training Centre/Programme, the Faculty and the School.  

The supervisor should also ensure that the PGR receives adequate training in research ethics and is given assistance in applying for ethical approval if appropriate.

For more information, please consult the following:

Code of research conduct and research ethics

Includes:  correct procedures; seeking advice

14. Meetings, conferences and publication

The supervisor(s) should encourage and facilitate the PGR to engage with relevant academics who will support their doctoral research and future career development.

This could be through encouraging attendance at seminars, meetings and conferences; introducing them to relevant individuals and professional networks; and encouraging them to publish the results of their research. 

Where appropriate supervisors should also support the PGRs to participate in public and policy engagement activities or undertake placements and internships that will enable them to develop their broader research experiences.

15. Written work

16. supervision during thesis pending period.

Includes: minimum number of meetings; the role of proofreaders

During the thesis pending period and any period of corrections or thesis re-submission, supervisors and PGRs should continue to meet regularly (as described above).

Supervisors will also read and comment on one draft of the candidate’s thesis prior to each submission (as appropriate) when submitted within the required timeframes for feedback to be given.

The Role of Proofreaders

A proofreader may only ensure that the meaning of the author is not misrepresented due to the quality and standard of the English used. This can include correcting spelling and basic grammar errors.

Inaccuracies in academic content should not be corrected nor should the structure of the piece of work be changed; doing so may result in a charge of plagiarism. 

17. Thesis presentation

Supervisors should advise candidate’s on the timing, construction and form of presentation of their thesis and should check that they receive a copy of the University's guidance on presenting a thesis, from Student Services or Central Administration at UNM or Graduate School at UNNC.

18. Examination of thesis

19. submission of data, additional information.

Includes:  PGR supervision record; Research supervisor resources

Research supervisor resources

Students studying in outside organisations

UNUK students   

Student services, unnc students .

UNM students 

Staff       , related content.

Portland Building, University of Nottingham University Park Nottingham, NG7 2RD

Legal information

• Terms and conditions
• Posting rules
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Charity gateway
• Cookie policy

Connect with the University of Nottingham through social media and our blogs .

Browser does not support script.

Teaching & Learning

• Research supervision at UCL

Research supervision resources

• Research supervision training

Research supervision

Role of a research supervisor at ucl.

Research student supervision is a core academic responsibility, requiring expertise in both teaching and research. 

The relationship between a supervisor and a research student is a unique one with a range of responsibilities, including: 

• Providing students with a thorough grounding in all aspects of research within the context of an academic discipline 
• Creating a learning experience that is intellectually challenging and personally fulfilling 
• Providing timely and constructive feedback on research design, methodology and writing 
• Offering encouragement and ongoing support for both academic and non-academic challenges as appropriate 
• Supporting students to disseminate their research 
• Preparing students for a range of careers 
• Monitoring students’ progress and ensuring that they are able to complete their doctorate in a timely manner. 

At UCL all students have at least two supervisors, typically a Principal and Subsidiary, but there are many models of co-supervision. Increasingly, students may be part of a Thesis Committee, which can involve three or more supervisors taking on different roles and responsibilities. 

See the UCL Doctoral School website for information about supervisory roles and responsibilities.   

Research supervision sits within a wide infrastructure of support for research students provided by teams, including the UCL Doctoral School, UCL Student Support and Wellbeing, UCL Organisational Development, UCL Careers and others. 

See the UCL Doctoral School website for information about support available to research students.   

The nature of the relationship means that supervisors deal with a range of situations requiring a sensitive and informed approach.  

See below for details of training and resources available to help you provide high quality research supervision.  

Research supervision training and development

An overview of the professional development courses and workshops available for staff responsible for research supervision.

Curated resources to support you in your research supervision role. 

Gain professional recognition for doctoral research supervision

Apply for recognition of your doctoral supervisory practice through UK Council for Graduate Education.

Related content

UCL Doctoral School: Essential information for research students and supervisors

UCL Academic Regulations and Guidelines for Research  in the Academic Manual

Education events

Funnelback feed: https://cms-feed.ucl.ac.uk/s/search.json?collection=drupal-teaching-lear... Double click the feed URL above to edit

• Research, Partnerships and Innovation
• Postgraduate Research Hub
• Supervision: The Code of Practice

Responsibilities of the supervisor

An outline of supervisors' responsibilities towards PGR students and the wider University.

• At the outset of the research, the supervisor should explore in detail the student's academic background to identify any areas in which further training (including English language training) is required. In particular, the supervisor should advise the student in the choice of subject-specific knowledge and skills training required. 
• The supervisor will give guidance on the nature of the research and the standard expected; the selection of a research programme and the topic to be covered; the planning and timing of the successive stages of the research programme; literature and sources; research methods and instrumental techniques; attendance at appropriate courses; data management, avoidance of unfair means and respect for copyright.
• The supervisor should ensure that they have a thorough understanding of the DDP and its benefits, to ensure students make the most appropriate choice of modules and other training and development opportunities.
• The supervisor should ensure that the student has a clear understanding in general terms of the main aspects of graduate research: the concept of originality; the different kinds of research; the form and structure of the thesis (including the appropriate forms of referencing); the necessary standards to be achieved; the importance of planning and time management; the procedures for monitoring and reporting progress.
• The supervisor should ensure that the student is aware of the University's Good Research and Innovation Practices (GRIP) Policy. In addition, the supervisor should ensure that the student has a clear understanding in general terms of good academic practice and, where relevant, ethics approval and research governance. 
• The supervisor should work with the student to establish an effective supervisory relationship, thereby supporting the student. This should include an agreement on the frequency of progress meetings and the arrangements for keeping records.
• The supervisor should set a target date for Confirmation Review and and regular progress milestones at induction, to ensure that all parties acknowledge the length of time available for each stage of the project.

Supervision

• The supervisor should ensure that the research project can be completed fully, including preparation and submission of the thesis, within the student's tuition fee-paying period, and should advise the student accordingly.
• The supervisor must ensure that a clear agreement is made with the student on the frequency and nature of the supervisory contact required at any particular stage of the project. Supervisory sessions should be uninterrupted as far as possible by telephone calls, visitors and other departmental/school business. The frequency of such sessions should be every four weeks as a minimum (pro-rata for part-time); the frequency may depend on the nature of the research (e.g. whether laboratory work is involved) and the specific research project. The length of sessions will also vary, from student to student, across time and between disciplines.
• The supervisor should comply with the attendance and engagement monitoring requirements of the department/school/University and raise any attendance or engagement concerns at an early stage.
• Written records of formal supervisory meetings should be made and retained by both the student and supervisor for at least the duration of the student's registration. 
• Both the supervisor and student should keep any relevant or significant correspondence, including emails, which relate to the student's degree.  This is especially important for students who are studying via the Remote Location programme or who are spending a significant amount of time off-campus.
• The student and supervisor must have an agreed procedure for dealing with urgent problems (e.g. by telephone, e-mail and/or the arrangement of additional meetings at short notice).
• The supervisor should, in discussion with the student, establish and maintain a satisfactory timetable for the research, including the necessary completion dates for each stage, so that the thesis may be submitted on time. This planning should take into account the requirements of the relevant funding body in relation to submission.
• The supervisor should read promptly all the written work submitted in accordance with the agreed timetable and provide constructive and timely feedback.  The supervisor should advise the student of any obstacles to providing timely feedback, e.g. planned periods of time away from the University, particularly when the student is approaching submission.
• The supervisor should arrange, as appropriate, for the student to present work to staff or graduate seminars and should take an active part in introducing the student to meetings of learned societies and to other researchers in the field. The supervisor should provide advice, where appropriate, on publication of any of the research.
• The supervisor should advise the student, in advance, of any planned periods of absence from the University. If the period of absence is significant (more than the length of time between supervisory meetings), the supervisor should ensure that appropriate arrangements for alternative supervision are made and that the student is informed of them.
• The supervisor should take note of feedback from the student.
• The supervisor should engage with mandatory Continuing Professional Development appropriate to their level of supervisory experience, in line with University requirements.

Academic progress

• The supervisor should ensure that the student is informed of any inadequacy of standards of work below that generally expected from research students and should suggest remedial action, or training, as appropriate.
• The supervisor should comply with all departmental/school, faculty and/or sponsor requirements concerning the monitoring of progress and submission of progress reports. 

The final stages

• The supervisor should nominate appropriate examiners well in advance of the thesis being submitted, bearing in mind that all nominations require faculty approval before they can be appointed.  Failure to do so will lead to delays in dispatching the student’s thesis and arranging the viva examination.
• The supervisor should read and comment on drafts of the thesis before submission.
• The supervisor should ensure that the student understands the procedures for the submission and examination of the thesis and should assist the student in preparing for the oral examination, including offering a mock viva.
• Should the student be asked to resubmit their thesis, the supervisor will be responsible for continuing to provide support and supervision throughout the resubmission period.
• The supervisor should discuss and agree with the student if there is a need to embargo the thesis and should sign off on the Access to Thesis form which specifies any embargo requirements.

Related information

Contact the Research Degree Support Team

Workshops for Research Supervisors

Responsibilities of the student

Responsibilities of the department

School of Graduate Studies

The role of a supervisor.

Fundamental to the idea of “supervision” is that a graduate faculty member (or occasionally more than one) takes primary responsibility for assisting you learn the craft of research and proceed successfully to your degree. Supervision can take many forms, depending on a variety of factors: for instance, the program you are enrolled in, the approach used by the supervisor, your needs and learning style, your discipline. 

Want to talk?

What you can expect of your supervisor.

In general, you can expect your supervisor to assist you in these areas:

• Planning.  Guiding you in the selection and planning of a meaningful and appropriate research topic that can be successfully completed within the normal time limit for the degree program; helping you establish a realistic timetable for completion of your program, preferably including a number of milestones to measure progress along the way.
• Guidance.  Providing you support and resources to help you understand the relevant theories, knowledge, and background literature, and the methodological and technical skills necessary for the research; providing adequate opportunity and a positive environment for discussion and constructive criticism of ideas, research plans, research results, and thesis drafts as the research progresses.
• Feedback.  Providing sufficient and appropriate guidance and commentary on progress to help ensure successful completion of the program; keeping track of progress and investigating any concerns; being open, honest, and fair with you when your academic performance is not meeting expectations. Sometimes, the most helpful feedback a supervisor can give you is that you are not making sufficient progress and what is required of you for improving your academic performance. While dealing with inadequate academic performance can be difficult, it is in no one’s best interests to prolong a program of study when success is unlikely.
• Accessibility.  Establishing regular meeting times for discussion and review of progress; being reasonably accessible for unscheduled meetings; making arrangements to ensure continuity of supervision during leaves or extended periods of absence.
• Assistance with setting up a supervisory committee.  Check your program requirements, but this should be done as early as possible in the program, and no later than the end of the second year. Ensuring that you have a meeting with your supervisory committee at least once a year, that the meeting is meaningful and helpful, and results in a written report of your progress for inclusion in your academic file. You should be given the opportunity to include your own comments in the report.
• Awareness of policies and regulations.  Being aware of, and ensuring that you are made aware of, all relevant policies and requirements for both your academic program and research.
• Ensuring academic and research integrity.  Ensuring that you understand the need for and meaning of the highest standard of academic and scholarly integrity both in coursework and research.
• Support and encouragement.  Assisting and encouraging your wider professional development through such means as: participation in seminars and colloquia, attendance and presentation of work at local, national, or international conferences; publication of your work in appropriate journals; encouraging authorship or co-authorship on publications as appropriate; taking advantage of the numerous offerings provided by the University for professional development, including the Graduate Professional Skills (GPS) program through the School of Graduate Studies; assisting you in the transition from degree program to employment by, for instance, providing advice on various career options, how to prepare a CV/resume, and strategies for launching an academic or other professional career, introducing you to professional colleagues and assisting in establishing a network of contacts, being willing to write letters of reference and communicate with relevant contacts.
• Health and safety.  Ensuring that the research environment in the lab or research group is safe, equitable, and free from violence, harassment and discrimination.
• Avoiding conflict of interest.  Avoiding personal or business relationships that may constitute a (perceived) conflict of interest.

Read the Responsibilities of the Student, Supervisor, and Supervisory Committee (Supervision Guidelines for Students – Section 4)

The role of supervisor vs. mentor.

We also believe that a good graduate supervisor will incorporate both roles of supervisor and mentor.

Your  supervisor  will guide you through the requirements of the academic program, set out expectations, provide evaluations and assessment of your work, and generally assist you in meeting and completing the various milestones and tasks that are part of your program.

As a  mentor,  your supervisor can be more focused on your long-term development and on providing personal support, not just with regard to the academic requirements but also regarding your development as a scholar and researcher. As a mentor, your supervisor will support you in aspects relevant to the academic process, including but not limited to time managements, conflict resolution, gaining familiarity with the scholarly or research culture in the particular discipline, exploring career options and providing advice on how to prepare for a career, etc. 

The supervisory relationship is only one of many opportunities to have a mentorship experience. We encourage you to explore other mentorship opportunities within your graduate unit or across the university. 

Graduate Supervision Guidelines

Supervision resources for graduate students, return to the guide homepage.

Next Application Deadline: September 27

Home > Resources > Healthcare Analytics > Clinical Research Manager Job Description

Clinical Research Manager Job Description

• Published July 26, 2017
• Updated May 2, 2024

Clinical research managers hold one of the most critical jobs in the healthcare industry, overseeing all aspects of clinical trials that evaluate new medications and medical devices.

People in these positions carry the responsibility for making sure the trial is conducted under very strict, very specific guidelines.

The job carries a great deal of responsibility. Clinical trials are a vital part of the development of any new medication or medical device, and companies often have their future riding on the outcome. Clinical trial managers not only oversee the trial, but also act as liaison between the trial site and the clinical study sponsor.

It’s a difficult job, but one that can provide a rewarding, stable and often lucrative career.

What Clinical Research Managers Do

When a company develops a new healthcare product, they must meet government regulations before being allowed to sell their product on the market. This means conducting clinical trials that determine whether the product does what its developers say it’s going to do, as well as ensuring that the product is safe for use.

Clinical research managers have a variety of duties associated with such trials. They include:

• Planning and overseeing the trial
• Determining whether a product accomplishes the goal for which it was produced
• Ensuring the product meets all government regulations and standards
• Managing a team of clinical research associates and specialists
• Training clinical research team members and evaluating their performance

In addition, clinical research managers communicate with trial sponsors, keeping them updated on progress.

Skills and Education Needed

Working as a clinical research manager requires a mix of skills. They include leadership in guiding the research team, communication skills with both the team and study sponsors, as well as the technical skills needed to successfully plan and execute a clinical trial.

The people in this field come from various backgrounds. They typically have at least a bachelor’s degree in a field related to their clinical work, ranging from biology to life sciences and bioengineering. Attaining the manager position almost always requires a master’s degree or doctorate.

The ability to write study protocols and other research-related documents is key, as is expert-level knowledge in clinical trial practices and regulations. Project management skills also can prove beneficial for clinical research managers, given the complexity of the job and requirement to lead cross-functional teams.

Typically, those who become research managers also have years of experience at lower levels of the operation, including research specialists.

*National long-term projections may not reflect local and/or short-term economic or job conditions, and do not guarantee actual job growth. Information provided is not intended to represent a complete list of hiring companies or job titles, and program options do not guarantee career or salary outcomes. Students should conduct independent research for specific employment information.

Related Articles

Health Data Analyst: Job Description & Salary Information

Machine Learning is Helping Monitor Drug Theft

Big Data Analytics Saves Money, Blood for Hospitals

Academic calendar.

Get Our Program Guide

If you are ready to learn more about our programs, get started by downloading our program guide now..

How can we help you?

How to Become a Research and Development Supervisor

Step 1: Understand the job description and responsibilities of a Research and Development Supervisor

What does a research and development supervisor do.

A Research and Development Supervisor supervises activities in the research and development department. Oversees personnel who utilize established mathematical and scientific techniques to compile and analyze data and write technical reports detailing procedures, outcomes, and observations. Being a Research and Development Supervisor ensures proper procedure, and helps devise new development techniques. Requires a bachelor's degree. Additionally, Research and Development Supervisor typically reports to a manager. The Research and Development Supervisor supervises a small group of para-professional staff in an organization characterized by highly transactional or repetitive processes. Contributes to the development of processes and procedures. To be a Research and Development Supervisor typically requires 3 years experience in the related area as an individual contributor. Thorough knowledge of functional area under supervision.

Principal investigators and supervisors have a significant role in supporting the professional development of researchers.

It enables structured conversations with researchers about progress to becoming a well rounded, capable and confident researcher.

The Supervisor Induction Program gives you a broad understanding of your roles and responsibilities for being a HDR Supervisor.

The Researcher Development Programme provides an essential range of seminars and workshops that are designed to support academic staff and higher degree research (HDR) candidates in building and progressing their research careers.

Vitae is the global leader in supporting the professional development of researchers, experienced in working with institutions as they strive for research excellence, innovation and impact.

Step 2: Learn best tips to become a Research and Development Supervisor

Best tips for those who want to become a research and development supervisor.

Here are some tips to become a Research and Development Supervisor.

Step 3: View best colleges and universities for Research and Development Supervisor

Best colleges and universities for research and development supervisor.

• Butler University
• Carroll College
• High Point University
• Princeton University
• Providence College
• Rollins College

Step 4: Think about whether is it worth to be a Research and Development Supervisor

Is being a research and development supervisor worth it.

Effectively work with other Supervisors to maintain daily kitchen organization and cleanliness.

Successful delivery of the new product development pipeline from initial concept to launch.

The authority’s purpose is to “promote opportunities for energy development in Southwest Virginia, create jobs and economic activity in the region consistent with the Virginia Energy Plan, and position Southwest Virginia and the commonwealth as a leader in energy workforce and energy technology research and development.”.

“My vision is to help create an Energy Park in Southwest Virginia that will bring research and development companies here to test and refine their products and theories.

“The Authority allows us to connect research and economic development in order to drive energy innovation in Southwest Virginia,” Kilgore said.

Step 5: Prepare relevant skills for being a Research and Development Supervisor

What skills do you need to be a research and development supervisor.

In order to drive yourself and your team to success, in a management position you need to have a broad base of skills.  For success in this position, you effeciency with these skills is key: Research Design, Scientific Research, Statistical Reporting, Scientific Study Reports, Scientific Testing.  Although every company varies in their requirements, these competencies will help you in this role.

To supervise/guide the Research and Development Team (Production) with product development and improvement and all related work required by the management.

Champion the technical design and development, evolution or acquisition of R&D Cross-Functional platforms; direct and influence standards and guidance to source system owners; ensures and experts integration with related functions.

The drive for self-development, the ability to collaborate, and an action-oriented work ethic.

Must have at least 2 years experience in Research and Development in food manufacturing.

Experience in oils and fats Research and Development and application as well (bakery, confectionery, dairy etc.).

Step 6: View average salary for Research and Development Supervisor

How much does a research and development supervisor make.

The average salary range for a Research and Development Supervisor is from $101,933 to $140,229. The salary will change depending on your location, job level, experience, education, and skills.

Average salary for Research and Development Supervisor jobs

• Scientific Research Supervisor
• Research Laboratory Supervisor
• Market Research Supervisor
• Research and Development Associate I
• Research and Development Associate II
• Research and Development Associate III
• Chemical Engineer I - Research & Development (R&D)
• Chemical Engineer II - Research & Development (R&D)

Step 7: Find relevant Research and Development Supervisor jobs, and apply.

Looking for research and development supervisor jobs.

Here are some Research and Development Supervisor jobs in the United States.

Step 8: Explore Career Path of Research and Development Supervisor

Roles and Responsibilities of Supervisors

Supervisors of Research Assistants may have multiple overlapping roles with respect to RAs which add complexity to the supervisory relationship. The supervisor may or may not be the graduate student’s research mentor or academic advisor. The activities required of the assistant also may or may not relate to their own graduate research for their master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation.

In all cases, it is the supervisor’s responsibility to clearly communicate the expectations of the position and the roles and responsibilities of the Research Assistant and of the supervisor.

Research Assistants and their supervisors should discuss any technical or safety training required prior to beginning the work or at other regular junctures during the appointments, the number of hours to be spent on-site versus remotely, and the approach to time off from Research Assistant responsibilities (e.g., how much time is allowed, how much notice is required).

It also can be useful to discuss the management style of the supervisor and the research group culture. Understanding whether to report to another graduate student, postdoc, staff member, or the supervisor directly, and whether there are requirements for weekly, monthly or semester meetings or reports, will help level the expectations for the student and the supervisor.

Research Assistants should ask about these matters when in doubt, but it is the supervisor’s responsibility to communicate expectations openly and clearly.

Previous Topic

Roles and Responsibilities of Research Assistants

Workload of Research Assistants

Roles and responsibilities of graduate students

Introduction.

Students should look upon graduate research as an opportunity to develop fully as a researcher and scholar under the mentorship of the supervisor, advisory committee and the department. It should also be seen as a vehicle to explore and advance career options both within and outside the academy. Ultimately, students are individually responsible for their course of study and conducting, communicating and defending their proposed research plan and outcome.

By embarking on a program of study at the graduate level, students make a commitment to strive for academic achievement and to contribute meaningfully to the intellectual life of the department, Faculty and University. Their primary academic responsibility as graduate students is to meet the requirements of their degree programs in a timely manner.  

When initiating a graduate program, graduate students are committing to engage in a partnership with their supervisor (if applicable) that will be most successful if it is built on mutual trust and respect. Students should seek the advice of their supervisor regarding their program of study and give serious consideration to that advice particularly with regard to research topic.  Students and supervisors are strongly encouraged to discuss the financial and physical resources available to complete the research plan. Students are ultimately responsible for producing a thesis or major paper which is the student’s own work, meets the standards for academic quality of the department and University, and reflects a capacity for independent scholarship in the discipline.

Regulations/procedures

Similar to departmental representatives and supervisors, graduate students’ experiences will be best when students have an understanding of the regulations and procedures that govern their graduate studies.  Therefore, students should:

3.1    Be knowledgeable and remain updated on department, Faculty and University regulations, Policies.  These include those listed in  section 1.2 .

3.2    Have knowledge of the  Waterloo policies (and Tri-Agency Policy)  (Office of Research) and procedures associated with research integrity. Students also have a responsibility to follow the  Responsible Conduct of Research Framework  (Government of Canada).

3.3    Ensure that their research complies with Ethics Review procedures when it involves human subjects, animals or animal or human tissues, as defined by the Office of Research – Office of Research Ethics. 

3.4    Familiarize themselves with the offices and services on campus ( as described in Section 1.2 ) as well as the organization of offices/individuals involved in the administration of their graduate program. A list of  campus resources for graduate students  can be found on the Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs website.

3.5    Communicate regularly with those who can provide timely and informed advice, including graduate co-ordinators, members of  Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs  (GSPA), the  Graduate Student Association (GSA-UW)  or the  University Secretariat .

3.6    Have knowledge of and meet all appropriate deadlines and regulations associated with registration, fee payment, award applications and graduation requirements, as specified by the department, Faculty and University.

3.7    Be committed to providing educational leadership to students as a Graduate Teaching Assistant when employed as such.

3.8    Be responsible for developing a sound research plan with achievable timelines and milestones. Students should seek the advice of and co-ordinate with their supervisor during the planning process and throughout its execution.  A students' timeline may include the completion dates of  milestones in master's and doctoral programs .

3.9   Keep a systematic and accessible record of their research work and results and be able to report to their supervisor and advisory committee (where applicable) on their progress. Student researchers are fully accountable for demonstrating authenticity of research findings at any time. Documentation of the research findings must be carried out through responsible means for the relevant discipline/field.

3.10    Co-ordinate with their supervisor and advisory committee (as applicable) to receive feedback on all stakeholders’ perception of the student’s progress.  Additional guidance on  how progress shall be assessed  can be found in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar.

3.11    Establish mutual expectations with their supervisors and advisory committee (as appropriate) on anticipated review times for students’ written submissions including theses, major research papers, draft journal articles and other research output. A timeframe of two to three weeks depending on the complexity of the document is commonly applied.

3.12    Communicate to their supervisor and/or advisory committee about  relevant University deadlines  (Important dates), including tuition refund or convocation dates.  In some instances, accelerated schedules may be achieved to accommodate students’ program completion.

3.13    Comply with the regulations governing academic integrity and complete the  Graduate Academic Integrity Module (AIM)  (Graduate Studies Academic Calendar) in the first academic term.

3.14    Have knowledge of the definitions of  enrolment status  (e.g. full-time to part-time, part-time to full-time, inactive, full-time off campus, co-op, exchange or voluntary withdrawal from your program) and the processes by which changes to their status can be made.

3.15    Be informed of the possible outcome enrolment status changes (i.e. loss of funding). Students should also be aware of  residency requirements  (Graduate Studies Academic Calendar) for their degree.

3.16   Understand  voluntary  or required to  withdraw decisions  and how the required to withdraw decision can be addressed under  Policy 70  through either a  petition  or grievance.

3.17   Be familiar with the process for  requesting a program extension  and under what circumstances this may be considered. Submit your request using the  Request of program time limits form  by the term deadline as noted.

3.18   Review the  petition process  and under what circumstances you may seek an exception to or relief from normal Faculty or University rules and regulations. After reviewing, submit your petition through the form -  Petition for Exception to Academic Regulations - Graduate Students (Form 70A) .

3.19   Be  familiar with the resources and options available  to them when challenges arise with their current supervisor.  These may include:

• Seeking the advice and intervention of departmental representatives;
• Communicating with and requesting the support of the Faculty Associate Dean, Graduate Studies;
• Entering into conflict resolution efforts with the support of the University resources such as Conflict Management;
• Being aware that there is a provision for changing supervisors.

Students must have agency and take responsibility for their own wellness.  Naturally, there will be times when students will benefit from the support services provided by the University.  Students should:

3.20   Have an awareness of the services at the University available to promote physical and mental well-being especially those listed in  section 1.2 .

3.21    Understand and take advantage of funding opportunities that support return to wellness, including the  medical leave, as administered by GSPA .

3.22    Have knowledge ofresources on campus that provide accommodations (i.e.  AccessAbility Services ) and understand their right to seek accommodations without disclosing disabilities to their supervisor. Engage the  Office of Research  to create IP arrangements that differ from University Policy.

Intellectual property 

Graduate students share responsibility in ensuring common understanding with other university stakeholders with regard to intellectual property (IP).  In the area of IP, students should:

3.23    Be informed about and adhere to  Policy 73  (Secretariat) on the ownership of intellectual property.

3.24    Engage their supervisor(s) in discussions that allow for students and supervisors to come to an agreement, in writing, of their current and future ownership of IP.

3.25    Work within the  Tri-Agency Responsible Conduct of Research Framework  (Government of Canada).

Thesis/research paper publications

The preparation of a student’s thesis or research paper is often a time during which students require the most support.  Further, common expectations between students and their supervisor(s) are critical in this time period.  To maximize the likelihood of positive experiences for students and supervisors, students should:

  3.26   Discuss, prior to the submission of a thesis/research paper, a draft of the submission with their supervisor.  The conversation should at a minimum address:

3.27     Comply with a responsible  standard of conduct in research  (Office of Research) while publishing/disseminating research materials/findings related to their graduate research ( Policy 73  (Secretariat) and conventions in the field should be followed).  Note thatstudents may not submit a paper for publication as co-authored without agreement of the co-author(s), including the supervisor, nor submit without consultation with the supervisor a paper authored by the student (solely or jointly with others) if the research project involved use of University facilities or was part of the student’s academic program. In such cases, institutional affiliation should be mentioned. Conventions of the field regarding authorship may vary.  In addition, students should be aware of predatory journals and conferences.   The Library  has resources and staff to help students recognize these organizations.

• The appropriate use of and recognition for any editing services that may be used in the preparation of the document.
• How the supervisor wishes to review drafts, by providing comments on individual components, or reacting to a draft of the full document;
• The expected review time for the supervisor to provide comments;
• The supervisor's intention to review any original data associated with the submission.  Note that students must comply with supervisor’s request for access to student’s data.
• Those colleagues or agencies who have contributed to the scholarship contained in the work or the funding of the research activity.  These contributors should be acknowledged in the thesis or research paper.
• How the student’s contributions will be articulated for those theses that contain elements that are not sole-authored by the student.

Communication/absence

 As with supervisors, graduate students will from time to time be physically absent from campus.   In these cases, students should:

3.28    Discuss plans with supervisors prior to being absent from campus for brief periods (e.g. vacation); include how communications and responsibilities will be managed during the absence.  Considerations should include the student’s own academic progress as well as any research activities that the student’s absence may influence.

3.29   Satisfy the requirements of  Policy 30  (Secretariat) if the students are serving as a Graduate Teaching Assistant.

3.30    Be informed that an  inactive status  (Graduate Studies Academic Calendar) can be applied when extended absences are necessary or possible.  Students may be inactive for up to two consecutive terms when students wish to pursue work opportunity not related to the thesis, or when temporary financial difficulties preclude the student’s continued enrolment.  International students who are studying with a student visa should consult immigration specialists to understand the implications of inactive terms on their current and future immigration status. 

3.31    Be informed of, and take advantage of,  medical or parental leaves  when warranted.

Creating safe environments and conducting activities in ways that promote safety are shared responsibilities among students, supervisors and other stakeholders.  To advance the goal of safety, graduate students should:

3.32    Familiarize themselves and comply with the safety regulations specified by the supervisor, department, Faculty and University [ see  Policy 34-Health, Safety and Environment  and other safety polices ( 41  &  60 ) on the Secretariat website].

3.33    Complete all required training in a timely manner. The  Safety Office  provides consultation and support services to the University community on matters relating to environmental and occupational health safety, including Fieldwork Risk and  working alone .

3.34    Know that the  Sexual violence awareness, referral and support training  (Human Rights, Equity and Inclusion Office) module is helpful for identifying supports and resources for the prevention of sexual violence.

3.35    Be proactive in seeking opportunities to maintain and enhance their safety training when regulations or expectations change, or when new safety risks arise.

Graduate students may engage in off-campus activities for a variety of purposes including conducting (field) research or disseminating the results of their scholarly activities.  Students have the responsibilities to prepare themselves such that the risks associated with travel are reduced and students are well-positioned to respond to unexpected challenges.  Moreover, students should make the University aware of their travel plans so that support or information can be provided to students who are away from campus should the need arise.  To achieve these goals, students should:

  3.36    Have knowledge of  Policy 31  (Secretariat) that governs University sanctioned travel, and follow the requirements and recommendations of that Policy.

3.37   Provide contact information, emergency contacts and location and duration of travel to their supervisor for documentation.

3.38    Be proactive in assessing the risk associated with travel including both the destination and the activities that are anticipated to take place.  Risk can be categorized as low or significant.  Low risk  (Safety Office) are activities for which it is expected that participants will encounter hazards that are no greater than what they encounter in their everyday lives. When a student anticipates experiencing what are deemed to be  significant risks  (e.g. industrial sites, remote regions etc.), the student is required to complete  the  Fieldwork Risk Management Form  from the  Safety Office .  Students should also consult with their supervisor and other resources to develop and document a risk mitigation plan.

3.39    Familiarize themselves and comply with regulations and preparation requirements for travelling abroad (see Waterloo International -  Information for Students ).  Students should complete the  Pre-departure Travel Form  at  Waterloo International  and be aware of  Government of Canada Travel Advice and Advisories web page  for the international destination.

Financial support 

Funding and access to financial resources are of critical importance to graduate students’ well-being.  Students will often receive financial support from various sources and that may change over the course of their studies.  Students’ primary responsibilities around funding are three-fold: to understand the nature of their funding – the amount and the timing – such that they are able to plan effectively to support themselves during their studies; to seek to identify funding sources for which the students may qualify; and to meet the requirements of the activities for which the students are being supported.  For these goals, students should:

3.40   Actively engage with their supervisor, their department and other university or external sources to identify funding opportunities.  The University strongly encourages students to explore their eligibility for Tri-Agency funding.

3.41    Meet the terms and conditions of the contractual agreement(s) with a supporting agency/department and Faculty and the relevant guidelines for financial support.  Policy 30  (Secretariat) provides guidelines, and procedures related specifically to graduate student teaching assistantships.  

Change of supervisor or committee membership 

In some instances, students may wish to change their supervisor or a member of their advisory committee.  Naturally, these instances create disruption in students’ academic progress and may result in trying situations for the student and the supervisor.  The University is eager to support students and supervisors in the resolution of challenges such that these academic relationships can be restored to a situation that is positive and productive for all stakeholders.  Every effort should be made to resolve a conflict before resorting to formal procedures as defined in  Policies 70  and  33  (Secretariat).  When the student does elect to seek a change in supervisor, the student should:

3.42    Follow the guidelines in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar regarding  University Responsibilities Regarding Supervisory Relationships  that outlines the steps for dissolution of the supervisory relationship.

3.43    Have prepared a summary of the student’s current academic status – terms in program, completed progress towards the degree, remaining requirements, etc. – that can then be shared with other potential supervisors.

3.44    Have considered and contacted those who may serve as the new supervisor or the new advisory committee member.

Guide for Graduate Research and Supervision

• Roles and responsibilities of departments, graduate officers and graduate co-ordinators
• Roles and responsibilities of supervisors
• Roles and responsibilities of advisory committees

Mathematica Careers

At Mathematica, we take pride in our employees and in their commitment to excellence. We encourage staff to collaborate in developing creative solutions to difficult problems and to share the responsibility and enjoyment of carrying out complex research.

Search Jobs and Apply

Radius Radius 5 miles 15 miles 25 miles 35 miles 50 miles

Job Description

Nutrition research supervisor.

Position Description:

Mathematica applies expertise at the intersection of data, methods, policy, and practice to improve well-being around the world. We collaborate closely with public- and private-sector partners to translate big questions into deep insights that improve programs, refine strategies, and enhance understanding using data science and analytics. Our work yields actionable information to guide decisions in wide-ranging policy areas, from health, education, early childhood, and family support to nutrition, employment, disability, and international development.

We are seeking part-time, temporary nutrition research supervisor for a nationwide study that is assessing the nutritional quality and cost of meals served in schools. Nutrition research supervisors will be responsible for managing data nutrition research assistants as they enter and code food purchase data. Data received from schools will be entered into a database and finalized in a food coding system. Responsibilities for the nutrition research supervisors include, but are not limited to, managing data entry and coding assignments, fielding questions about the data entry platform, performing quality assurance checks on data entry and coding efforts.

Positions start in late October 2024 and will likely last through October 2025, with the possibility of continuing work on other study tasks for additional months. Positions require a minimum commitment of 24 hours per week, and scheduling is flexible between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm EST, Monday through Friday, with an opportunity for more flexible hours outside these times as the work progresses.

Position Requirements:

• Bachelor’s degree or prior experience with food service or nutrition studies (degrees in nutrition, dietetics, or related field preferred)
• Experience in managing and leading teams
• Flexibility to handle multiple priorities, sometimes simultaneously, under deadline pressure.
• Excellent computer skills, including proficiency with navigating online computer programs
• Organized, detail-oriented, and self-motivated
• Excellent written and verbal communication skills
• Prior experience with data entry and food coding (but not required)
• Prior experience with nutrition studies preferred

To apply, please submit a cover letter and a resume. This position will offer an anticipated hourly rate of $23.

This position is categorized as on-call, and as such, the hours may at times vary based on project needs. Your employment will be classified as on-call until the duration of the project(s) or need(s) is complete.

We are an Equal Opportunity Employer and do not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, sex, age, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, status as a veteran, and basis of disability or any other federal, state or local protected class.

At Mathematica, we understand the importance of building relationships with colleagues. If you’re not located near one of our offices but would like opportunities to meet up with co-workers, we offer coworking spaces where available. Ask your Talent Acquisition partner for more information about this opportunity and whether it’s an option in your area.

Any offer of employment will be contingent upon passing a background check. Various federal agencies with whom we contract require that staff successfully undergo security clearance as a condition of working on the project. If you are assigned to such a project, you will be required to obtain the requisite security clearance. Additionally, if you participate in/complete the application process and are denied, Mathematica may choose to terminate your employment.

Although Mathematica does not require vaccination from COVID-19 as a condition of employment, various projects or agencies may require documentation of vaccination (or an approved exception/accommodation).

We take pride in our employees and in their commitment to excellence. We encourage staff to collaborate in developing creative solutions to difficult problems and to share the responsibility and enjoyment of carrying out complex projects. This collegial spirit has helped us earn our reputation for innovative and high quality work.

One of Mathematica’s core values is a deep commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Our work is more robust because it is informed by a variety of diverse perspectives, and our mission to improve societal well-being is strengthened by a greater understanding of issues and challenges facing the populations we serve. Mathematica’s ongoing commitment to diversity and inclusion is woven into our everyday actions, policies, and practices—including decisions regarding recruitment, training, compensation, and promotion. We are dedicated to maintaining a work environment in which everyone is treated with respect and dignity.

Sign Up for Job Alerts

Email Address

Job Category Select a Job Category Accounting/Finance Administrative Services Business Development Health Research Information Technology Internships Project Management Research

• Research, Remote Remove

Confirm Email

Do you need assistance?

If you need an accommodation due to a disability to complete any part of the application or interview process (if selected), you can request an accommodation by contacting the Human Resources Department [email protected] or [609-799-3535|]. Accommodations are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: A focus group study

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations AmsterdamUMC, Department of Ethics, Health and Humanities, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Philosophy, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaram, Bandung, Indonesia

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands

Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences (BMS), Universiteit Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands

• Joeri K. Tijdink, 
• Govert Valkenburg, 
• Sarah de Rijcke, 

• Published: September 4, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Introduction

The focus on quantitative indicators–number of publications and grants, journal impact factors, Hirsch-index–has become pervasive in research management, funding systems, and research and publication practices (SES). Accountability through performance measurement has become the gold standard to increase productivity and (cost-) efficiency in academia. Scientific careers are strongly shaped by the push to produce more in a veritable ‘publish or perish‘ culture. To this end, we investigated the perspectives of biomedical researchers on responsible assessment criteria that foster responsible conduct of research.

We performed a qualitative focus group study among 3 University medical centers in the Netherlands. In these centers, we performed 2 randomly selected groups of early career researchers (PhD and postdoc level & senior researchers (associate and full professors) from these 3 institutions and explored how relational responsibilities relate to responsible conduct of research and inquired how potential (formal) assessment criteria could correspond with these responsibilities.

In this study we highlighted what is considered responsible research among junior and senior researchers in the Netherlands and how this can be assessed in formal assessment criteria. The participants reflected on responsible research and highlighted several academic responsibilities (such as supervision, collaboration and teaching) that are often overlooked and that are considered a crucial prerequisite for responsible research. As these responsibilities pertain to intercollegiate relations, we henceforth refer to them as relational. After our systematic analysis of these relational responsibilities, participants suggested some ideas to improve current assessment criteria. We focused on how these duties can be reflected in multidimensional, concrete and sustainable assessment criteria. Focus group participants emphasized the importance of assessing team science (both individual as collective), suggested the use of a narrative in researcher assessment and valued the use of 360 degrees assessment of researchers. Participants believed that these alternative assessments, centered on relational responsibilities, could help in fostering responsible research practices. However, participants stressed that unclarity about the new assessment criteria would only cause more publication stress and insecurity about evaluation of their performance.

Our study suggests that relational responsibilities should ideally play a more prominent role in future assessment criteria as they correspond with and aspire the practice of responsible research. Our participants gave several suggestions how to make these skills quantifiable and assessable in future assessment criteria. However, the development of these criteria is still in its infancy, implementation can cause uncertainties among those assessed and consequently, future research should focus on how to make these criteria more tangible, concrete and applicable in daily practice to make them applicable to measure and assess responsible research practices in institutions.

Trial registration

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9tjda/ .

Citation: Tijdink JK, Valkenburg G, Rijcke Sd, Dix G (2024) Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: A focus group study. PLoS ONE 19(9): e0307814. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814

Editor: Julian D. Cortes, Universidad del Rosario: Universidad Del Rosario, COLOMBIA

Received: August 30, 2023; Accepted: July 11, 2024; Published: September 4, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Tijdink et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: ZonMw (= funder in the Netherlands) Award Number: Grant No. 445001010 | Recipient: Sarah de Rijcke, Prof. PhD The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The focus on quantitative indicators–number of publications and grants, journal impact factors, Hirsch-index–has become pervasive in research management, funding systems, and research and publication practices (SES). Accountability through performance measurement has become the gold standard to increase productivity and (cost-) efficiency in academia. Scientific careers are strongly shaped by the push to produce more in a veritable ‘publish or perish‘ culture [ 1 , 2 ]. Over the past decade, the shortcomings of assessment criteria for promotion and tenure for researchers have become increasingly evident [ 3 – 6 ]. Such criteria may stimulate undesirable research practices such as guest/ghost authorship, multi-publishing in predatory journals, salami slicing and p-hacking with the aim to increase performance metrics. These criteria jeopardize the responsible conduct of research. Besides, it may induce fierce competition, false incentives, reduced willingness to collaborate and reduced attention to other important academic duties (e.g. education). Moreover, other research also emphasized reform of evaluation practices to stimulate flexibility per individual assessment, institutions should incentivize non-traditional criteria [ 7 ] and emphasizing interdisciplinary work [ 8 ], would bring new perspectives to the debate on promotion and tenure. There have been a number of initiatives recently that aim to change current assessment practices (the Leiden Manifesto [ 6 ], the DORA statement [ 9 ], the changing incentives and reward criteria in funding bodies [ 10 , 11 ], the Reward alliance and the Hong Kong manifesto [ 12 ].

However, two major unknowns still stand out.

First, it is unclear to what extent institutions will actually change their evaluation practices. A recent study, investigating such practices in 146 institutions, shows that, despite the criticism, many institutions still favor traditional assessment criteria over novel and innovative criteria that emphasize compliance with open science practices, good leadership, responsible supervision or educational skills [ 7 ]. Regarding the reliability of scientific knowledge, similarly, universities might remain rather conservative in not including the transparency, replicability and accuracy of reported findings in new-found assessment criteria [ 13 ].

Second, it is yet unclear whether the existing reform initiatives will counter unintended effects of the conventional use of performance metrics. Being relatively new, it is an open question whether or not they help to foster responsible conduct of research by selecting the scientists with more multidimensional profiles beyond a good publication, citation and funding record. Moreover, it is uncertain if these mechanisms will foster academic behaviour that complies with ideals of responsible conduct in research.

In light of these two unknowns, it is important to understand the kinds of bottom-up support that institutional changes in academic assessment can count on. For as a survey of publication practices showed, researchers do (re)consider such practices in relation to institutional evaluation criteria [ 14 ]. The dissemination and acceptability of new evaluation practices could benefit from insights into researchers’ perspectives on the current assessment of responsible conduct of research and on the changes in the assessment of academic tasks and responsibilities that are needed to assess research and researchers responsibly. One study alluded to this by emphasizing researchers perceptions of valuation regimes beyond traditional research activities and how current systems and criteria can influence behavior and choices regarding the activities they prioritize [ 15 ]. This is also influenced by intense competition can narrow the range of activities and goals that scientists pursue due to the limited set of criteria and values by which scientists are judged and that reevaluating the criteria in academia is necessary to create a healthier and more sustainable research culture [ 16 ].

In a two-year qualitative research project, Optimizing the responsible researcher , we asked: What possibilities do biomedical researchers themselves see for the improvement of evaluation practices? To systematically address that question, we draw on 6 focus group interviews with junior and senior researchers at three Dutch University Medical Centers (UMC’s).

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee. The Medical Ethics Review Committee of VU University Medical Center assessed our project and confirmed that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to our study (see Supplementary files).

Participants

We included researchers who worked at 3 different University Medical Centers in the Netherlands. We decided to conduct focusgroups among 2 different groups and selected 2 types of active researchers; 1) Senior researchers: assistant, associate and full professors and 2) Junior researchers: postdocs, PhD candidates. We selected those researchers who have published about their research in the past two years, as a proxy criterion for their being ‘active’ as researchers. The two categories are considered sufficiently internally homogeneous with respect to academic seniority, and should allow for the focus group participants to recognize each other as peers. Our recruitment strategy was diverse; we used several techniques to invite colleagues from different ranks and disciplines. We approached the dean’s office to ask for interested researchers, used our collegial network and randomly invited researchers by email to invite them to participate in our study.

We recruited a variety of biomedical disciplines to create some perspectival diversity. Within each group, all participants were selected from the same UMC. We aimed for a group size between 6 and 8 participants, and maintained a minimum of 3 researchers. After confirmation of participation, the participants were sent a one-page description of the purposes of the research project as well as the main conditions of the informed consent in advance of the project by email.

Informed consent

Participation to the focus groups were subject to obtaining verbal informed consent at the start of the focus group, referring to the sent document that contained the privacy policy and based on additional verbal explanation during the focus groups of the following conditions: 1) the purpose of the research and the focus group; 2) treatment of the focus group recordings: anonymized transcriptions and notes on nonverbal communication and behaviour, coding of transcriptions by the research team. And 3) the right to leave the focus group at any point, or to refuse answering specific questions or discussing specific topics, without further obligation of explanation.

Procedure of focus groups

First, we investigated how researchers perceive the norms they see their work subject to, and how they see these norms relate to their own ideals of proper research / responsible research practices. Underlying the focus group methodology is the idea that people come to more balanced and comprehensive account in a conversation with peers, than they would in an individual conversation with an interviewer who is less akin. As set out above, the groups were composed homogeneously with respect to academic rank so participants could recognize each other as peers. Heterogeneity in biomedical disciplines was pursued, as this is reckoned conducive to critical appraisal.

The focus groups were conducted in 2017 and 2018. The focus groups were in English if there were participants that were not fluent in Dutch. A moderator facilitated the focus groups (JKT) and an observer (GV and/or GD) made notes about the process and its content. The focus groups started with a short introduction in which the goals of the project were explained. Questions could be answered in that phase. We used a topic guide as a semi-structured way to guide the focus group discussions.

The focus groups were recorded by the research team and transcribed by an external party. Most transcriptions were coded by 2 members of the research team (JKT and GD). In first instance, code systems were developed and via inductive content analysis led to several themes, and in second instance the themes were analysed by the second coder. After the focus groups, participants received a short summary of the discussion (member check) [ 17 ] or received a preprint of this manuscript.

We used inductive content analysis for the analysis of the transcripts of the focus groups and took the following steps in this process. First we coded the data on a phrase level. Next, we established a tentative set of themes to analyze the selected phrases, while allowing for flexibility to revise and update these themes during the process, if necessary. Then we analyzed the different themes and summarized these themes. This process of inductive content analysis helps us to understand complex discussions and bring them back to meaningful themes [ 18 ]. One researcher (JKT) analyzed and coded the transcripts entirely. One other team member (GD) read the transcripts entirely and coded 2 transcripts independently. The themes were discussed with the other team members [ 17 ].

Descriptive information.

We conducted 6 focus groups with 32 researchers from 3 university medical centers and across a wide variety of disciplinary fields, see Table 1 .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814.t001

We started the focus groups with an exercise to familiarize the participants with each other, the topic and the methodology. Participants were asked about their experiences with questionable research practices and what they find the most detrimental research misbehaviors. In both junior and senior groups, most participants had experiences with authorship disputes, while some of them reported more severe breaches of RI (such as data manipulation). Interestingly, bad supervision was mostly mentioned by the more senior participants as a potential threat of research integrity.

In analyzing the content of the focus group transcripts, we came to identify 3 themes–collaboration, supervision and teaching–that relate to responsible research practices. Each theme represents a responsibility of researchers vis-à-vis others that the participants think should be better recognized and rewarded. After this, we explored potential solutions for improving the assessment criteria that they are also in line with the identified themes of the responsible research practices.

Based on these 3 themes that were discussed, we divided them into 2 categories: 1) responsibilities of researchers that are related to research integrity; and 2) new forms of assessment that could cater to these responsibilities. Both categories hence consisted of 3 themes each. We have collected quotes from all focus groups and have reported the most typical quotes that illustrate the discussed solutions in Table 2 at the end of this results section. If the focus group was conducted in Dutch, we have translated the quote into English. Below, we present the two categories of themes. After these results of the focus groups, we will briefly discuss the results of the evaluation labs with relevant stakeholders that we organized to safeguard the uptake of our findings.

Below we highlight the 3 main themes (collaboration, supervision and teaching by emphasizing the most suitable quotes about these themes. Furthermore, we describe the 3 solutions that were brought up during the discussions on researcher assessment in the FGs and highlight potential limitations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814.t002

I. Responsible research as the relational responsibilities of researchers

Research integrity is a term that sparked lively discussions in the focus groups. But it is also a term that was difficult to capture as one ‘thing’; a thing that can be clearly defined and assessed. In the first part of the focus group, participants discussed what research integrity meant to them. They highlighted that a researcher with integrity is someone who does good research and knows what good research is. For many, research integrity is not necessarily a character trait that you develop–although honesty would be part of the requirements of a responsible researcher. More than a character trait, integrity is seen by participants as an element of good research practices associated with the replicability of someone’s work; the compliance with open science principles (such as sharing data); and collegial reviews to assess to what extent the published work is of high quality. Despite these elements, familiar ones for those professionally preoccupied with the topic, participants found it hard to make research integrity converge into a clear measure that could find its way in the assessment criteria. As a senior researcher (UMC 1) expressed it: And integrity : I cannot see yet how one should assess this . It is very important , of course , for a responsible scientist , to have some of these measures that you should ask for in a more qualitative manner or that should be part of the way people assess one another .

The reproducibility of scientific results, for instance, seems particularly hard to evaluate: ‘ The only thing that comes to my mind that would be an unbiased , but really tricky , way to sort of assess honesty , is to look at how someone’s work is followed up and reproduced independently , right , after publication ’ (Senior Researcher UMC 2).

But although research integrity seems elusive as a characteristic of research or of a researcher which one could directly measure and assess, participants did find indirect ways that open it up for evaluative purposes. What particularly stands out are the social relations and skills that are deemed necessary to act responsibly in research settings. These relations and skills are pivotal in conducting responsible research and permeate the kinds of role modeling and leadership that people are capable of. Or, in the words of a junior researcher, ‘ being responsible for your researchers is also part of responsible research’ (Junior researcher UMC 3). Junior researchers would appreciate more focus on scientists who act responsibly because ‘people who enjoy the game , but that are not doing responsible research , they stick around too much ’ (Junior researcher UMC 2). Another junior researcher sides with this point of view, though expressed somewhat stronger terms: ‘When you look at the system as it is right now , it presorts quite significantly on a very specific , scary personality type’ (Junior researcher UMC 1). A possible explanation for that presorting process, is that people who enjoy ‘the game’ sometimes become full professor predominantly on the basis of their skills as researcher, not so much on their skills as research leaders. Perhaps, these research content-related qualities should not stand out in the decision to let researchers ‘supervise these people who end up at home with a burn-out’ (Junior UMC 3). In addition to the inability to directly assess research integrity, the importance of social relations and skills in responsible research practices hence stood out as a second key finding. These relational responsibilities branch out in three different themes that should be (more) central in responsible research assessment according to our participants: researchers relate to peers in constructive collaboration to foster responsible research among researchers in biomedical research overall; researchers relate to PhD’s in responsible supervisory practices; and they relate to students in responsible teaching practices.

Relational responsibility theme 1: Collaboration.

The participants agreed that collaboration in general is essential for scientific research. In biomedicine, research is mostly done in teams and the importance and value ‘team science’ has gained more attention recently [ 19 , 20 ]. Participants consider the ability to collaborate a pivotal skill for a biomedical researcher. They feel that poor collaborative skills are important reasons for disputes and potentially threaten research integrity. Having collaborative skills can, according to most of the participants, hence be considered as a core characteristic of a responsible researchers and therefore ‘collaboration , the competence to collaborate , has to be assessed’ (senior researcher UMC 3). The actual assessments of (the development of) this competence could increase the emphasis on the collaborative nature of biomedical research.

The question how to integrate this competence in individual assessments leads to various answers. As with supervision, one can ask for 360 degrees of feedback from team members to assess someone’s collaborative skills. Interestingly, some participants are geared towards more competitive inducements for collaboration: ‘You could also have like , well , a prize for a well-functioning team; you could have something like a team player prize’ (senior researcher UMC 3). Other participants, on the contrary, reckoned that rewarding collaboration skills through such external incentives might be problematic due to the fact that collaboration should remain an intrinsic drive of team leaders: ‘ Well , many people have the inner incentive that they want their group to function well and we don’t need to have such an artificial score for it’ (Senior Researcher UMC 1).

Relational responsibility theme 2: PhD supervision.

In addition to collaboration, the participants stress that PhD supervision is one of the key elements of responsible research practices. Although it is not valued and represented in their institutions’ assessment criteria, most participants feel that supervision is one of the cornerstones of such practices. To start with, they argue one has to be aware of the fact that one is a role model in their research group in the sense that ‘ well , you know how things ought to be and show that too . And you straighten people out when they think they can deviate from it’ (senior researcher UMC 3). In addition, participants consider that supervision of high quality should not solely focus on transmitting the technical knowledge and know-how that are essential for good research practices but should also focus on the relationship between supervisor and supervisee. They suggest that there should be attention to the personal development of the supervisee. As one senior researcher expressed it, to educate researchers to stand their ground in society you ‘not only have to invest in scientific training but in someone’s personal development in the wider sense of the term’ (senior researcher UMC 3). Such supervision skills require both training and practice to make people aware of their role as well as their capacities. Being promoted from junior to senior positions ‘you grow into this at a certain moment’ through the ‘interaction with your people’ (senior researcher UMC 3). And even though personality may play a role here as well, becoming a good role model and developing supervisory skills is easier ‘when you are trained well and when it is , kind of , explained to you’ (senior researcher UMC 3).

Assessment of supervision is complex: it is difficult to measure the quality of supervision and there are limitations to assess supervision quality by PhD students because they have a dependent relationship with their supervisor. A potential solution to these issues is also suggested. There can be a mentor system, where PI’s from other departments have regular meetings with PhD students, or an semi-anonymous ‘360 degrees assessment’ with special attention to supervision skills.

Relational responsibility theme 3: Teaching.

Currently, educational responsibilities are often seen as a burden for individual researchers because they are not a top priority for them. Although the education of students is a vital responsibility of universities, this is not automatically reflected into the ideals of good science and responsible research practices: ‘To teach or to disseminate things to society : that does belong to it but is currently not considered to be a way to be a good scientist’ (Junior researcher UMC 1). According to the participants, teaching has thus a very important indirect relation with responsible research practices. Students learn to become responsible researchers by following workshops and lectures, being supervised during master theses, develop academic skills in classrooms and gain experience in conducting research that is taught according to the highest standards of research integrity. However, engaging in education will cost researchers time and energy that they cannot spend on other ‘assessable’ tasks such as writing publications and grant applications. The notion that teaching will not be very important to their career advancement is widespread. This in turn makes that some participants have developed a pragmatic attitude towards teaching that can border on the opportunistic: ‘For some people , teaching is not their greatest hobby . And then they still do it and try to somehow get a good evaluation out of it’ (senior researcher UMC 3). What does not help, participants add, is that hiring committees seem to be looking for the impossible. As one of our senior researchers states: ‘You have to conduct research , and create societal relevant work and you have to be good at teaching too’ (Senior researcher UMC 3). But while you are expected to excel in all academic tasks, it is not easy to be good at everything.

The participants give several solutions to include education in the assessment system. This can be done by taking the hours spent on education, the development of new courses and student evaluations explicitly into consideration when assessing researchers. A possible limitation to these suggestions is also brought up: it may strengthen the pragmatic or opportunistic attitude to get high assessment scores on educational skills.

From relational responsibilities to relational assessment

The three relational responsibilities that our participants singled out are deemed essential in fostering responsible research practices and a positive research culture of a faculty, department, or research group. However, the participants acknowledge that relational responsibilities very much depend on research culture, formation of teams and activities of team leaders. They are key in engaging in, and maintaining, collaborative relations, supervise young researchers and are often considered a role model to give the right example in their team. ‘In a research group , you function as a role model in that you also , well , know how things should go and show how things should go . And to call people to order in case they think they can deviate from this . ’ (Senior researcher UMC 2). The orientation towards the team and how it functions is bound up with an orientation towards the kinds of social skills, such as a reflexive stance and communicative skills that someone has to possess or develop. Some participants highlighted that what makes that someone becomes a team player is a specific attitude. As way of relating to others, taking relational responsibility is opposed to the search for self-aggrandizement that is also plentiful in academia: ‘I would think that ‘responsible’ is more applicable to someone who intends to be of service to others and does not act in too selfish a way’ (Senior researcher UMC 2). Or even more strongly put, responsible researchers can be opposed to narcistic attitudes of researchers: ‘narcissism is an outgoing personality , that is not something compatible with responsible researchers .’ Though deemed essential to responsible research practices, team-oriented attitudes are not seen as core characteristics that are essential for researchers. If they want to further in their career, team oriented is something that is often being valued but never recognized in current evaluation forms: ‘There are quite a lot of researchers who really make it , but who are not team players’ (Junior Researcher UMC 2 ) . On the contrary, the ‘system’ seems to discourage team science by focusing on individual recognition: ‘Because it is almost the case that you remain a team player despite the system . Because the system holds individuals accountable of course’ (senior researcher UMC 3). Currently, the assessment criteria are predominantly focusing on achievements made by an individual. But when the research community deems relational responsibilities as important as individual achievement, then the assessment criteria should take such responsibilities into account. Below we describe the 3 themes that were highlighted by our participants as potential instruments to assess relational responsibilities.

Relational assessment theme 1: Reward team effort and team science.

The current assessment criteria are mainly focused on individual publications and metrics performance and not rewarding team efforts. Since collaboration is considered one of the cornerstones of responsible biomedical research, more emphasis on team science in assessment and promotion criteria would help. This will also put less pressure on individual performance and reward a wider range of researchers for their contribution. Currently, the researchers who value collective performance as at least as important as individual achievement and may not focus solely at obtaining tenure or full professorship, do not feel recognized while they are very much involved in collaborative projects. As one researcher suggests: ‘According to me , the biggest bottleneck is that these criteria always apply to the individual . While we , in this conversation , emphasize that it is a collective effort , a team process’ (senior research UMC 3). A second way of better assessing teamwork would be to reward academic leaders who show that you can lead a flourishing team on several levels. Only if you can fulfill these criteria, you will have a chance to get promoted: ‘ That you say something like : you only become a leader when you can really keep a team on track . And that is what you have to show . That is one of the competences that is assessed . And this means that you can manage this team , it means that you can see the broader scope of a research field …’ (senior researcher UMC 1)

A third and final suggestion would be to better reward a diverse set of roles in teams. This is not often part of current assessment systems but is a crucial factor in good team work. You need a diverse team with a wide variety of research qualities–and persons who possess such qualities–to make your research endeavor both responsible and successful. Rewarding team efforts here means that you have eyes for all the different perspectives and types work that are needed in a team and think of a way to make visible how an individual human being functions inside it: ‘And to really give weight to this without that Hirsch-index type of thing . I don’t know how to exactly do that . So : recognize the diversity inside the team and your role in this’ (senior researcher UMC 3).

Relational assessment theme 2: Provide 360 degrees of feedback.

In the focus group discussions, participants also addressed the advantages and disadvantages of the ‘360 degrees feedback’-model. On the positive side, this is a form of assessment where you can explore multiple dimensions of a person such as collaborative skills, motivation and personality by (anonymously) interviewing co-workers, subordinates, or bosses. One participant highlighted one of the benefits: ‘my supervisor did not see all my qualities . Other ranks should have a better picture of your qualities and what you can improve (senior researcher UMC 3)’. A senior researcher, who is part of a committee that keeps track of PhD student well-being, comments upon the ‘enormous number of dysfunctional labs , that you would never think of’ (Senior researcher UMC 2). To get a grip on existing lab culture and the problems that might otherwise remain hidden, the participant advocates ‘the idea of interviewing also people who are junior’ to get unbiased and open feedback: ‘ I mean , personally I also did this and it’s really interesting to see what people think of me , what I need to tone down , what I need to improve on , and I think that’s something that would be important in the assessment of senior PIs’ (senior researcher UMC 2). Introducing 360 degrees of feedback would allow the institute to find out what people think of the leadership, the environment and the (lack of) transparency.

On the downside, it can potentially be influenced by negative attitudes of others who are begrudged, are unkind and can be subjective. Another limitation is the fact that it is time consuming for both the institution and the researcher to complete. Among the participants, this sparked the discussion on audits, a thorough (and time-consuming) way to explore responsible research practices on the shop floor by auditing research teams and practices in laboratories. The participants directly stated that for some disciplinary fields this would be easier to implement than other fields (e.g. audits may potentially have most impact in research labs, and may be less feasible for departments that conduct clinical research).

Relational assessment theme 3: Engage in narrative assessment.

A third way of assessing whether a researcher is responsible according to our participants is by using the narrative in assessment procedure. In narratives you assess the quality of a researcher in terms of research aims, individual motivation and responsible research practices and can answer the following questions. How does someone behave vis-à-vis others? What do colleagues say about the research or researcher? How compliant is their engagement with open science practices and what are the virtues of someone as a person? In line with what we remarked earlier, our participants were ambivalent about the idea that relational responsibilities can actually be directly assessed as they are not so easy to detect or measure. Or, as one senior researcher expressed it: ‘These soft skills are very difficult to capture in criteria that you can also put on a list’ (Senior Researcher UMC 2). But assessment in a narrative form could help out here: ‘perhaps people should be interviewed by commissions or something like that . That you get a way better picture of the person and how he operates in such a team’ (Senior research UMC 1). Another participant pointed to the possibilities of a narrative assessment in differentiating between qualities someone possesses. This comes back to the notion that you will not have a one size, fits all assessment and that most researchers have different qualities. Some researchers in specific disciplines do not publish much but have other important academic qualities that should be acknowledged and considered. To get a hold on these qualities, a narrative can shine light on them. Only with this, you will get a better idea what the researcher is like and what his qualities are.

Although relational responsibilities are valued as part of responsible research behavior and practices, some ambivalence remains here. Some participants also raised concerns that these alternative assessments would lead to too much assessment procedures for researchers: ‘shouldn’t you be afraid , at least I am , that we are going to design a whole system to get the non-responsible people in line ? That the instrument is in fact a bit of an overkill ?’ (senior researcher UMC 3). Other participants do not see the strife for recognition from others as an evil per se. They argue that ‘a little narcissism here and there is not so bad in itself because it will get you a long way and you can do many useful things with it in the end’ (junior researcher UMC 1). This point of view is in a certain way partially incongruent with other findings as this does emphasize the need for individual recognition and fewer relational responsibilities from narcissists.

In general, current evaluation criteria in academia have received severe criticism in the past years [ 4 – 7 , 9 , 13 ]. Several initiatives have pleaded for a different approach when assessing research and researchers and often conventional metrics, such as the impact factor or the H-index are considered weak and unidimensional. However, the use of these metrics is widespread and engrained in academic culture [ 5 ]. In this study we highlighted what is considered responsible research among junior and senior researchers in the Netherlands and how this can be assessed in formal assessment criteria. The participants of the focus groups reflected on responsible research and highlighted several academic responsibilities (such as supervision, collaboration and teaching) that are often overlooked and that are considered a crucial prerequisite for responsible research. After our systematic analysis of these ‘relational responsibilities’, we focused on the solutions that the participants came up with: how can these duties be reflected in multidimensional, concrete and sustainable assessment criteria? Participants emphasized the importance of assessing team science, suggested the use of a narrative in researcher assessment and valued the use of 360 degrees assessment of researchers. Participants believed that these alternative assessments, centered on relational responsibilities, could help in fostering responsible research practices.

Our study sheds a new light on the assessment discussions as it is emphasizing the assessment of relational responsibilities. Besides, our study also provides a number of suggestions how these skills should be assessed and how these skills are closely related and connected to responsible research. Our findings also fit well with the national initiative in the Netherlands entitled ‘ room for everyone’s talent’ that is initiated by the Dutch Royal Academy of Science and recognized by all universities, funding agencies and other stakeholders in the Netherlands. In their position paper, they plead for a radical change in assessing researchers with an emphasis on diversity, focus on quality, stimulating open science and encouraging academic leadership [ 21 ]. Although not specifically focusing on relational responsibilities as a different entity, the way these responsibilities should be recognized is reflected in their position paper.

Interpretation of data

Our study identifies the need for alternative assessment criteria that are related to responsible research practices and outlines how relational responsibilities should be valued in the assessment of research and researchers. Our study proposes alternatives that, although they may be a bit more difficult to implement and requires that assessment procedures are revised so as to enable them to incorporate qualitative evaluations. This is possibly challenging in its novelty, and requires additional research to further develop these evaluations. Moreover, the suggestions from the participants can help policy makers to redesign their current assessment criteria. They also are a plea for more elaborate discussions on the criteria and invite policymakers to use a different strategy to assess researchers. For example, 360 degree evaluations can form the basis of the yearly evaluation conversations where researchers have to reflect on the responsibilities they have towards others–not just their achievements. Before we turn to the introduction of these new forms of assessment in institutional settings it is necessary to emphasize the limitations of these assessment themes. There are (at least) three.

First, our results are still a first step and these types of assessment criteria are still in its infancy and need rigorous testing before they can be put into practice. Furthermore, the participants recommend a blended approach in which both the conventional criteria (JIF, H-index, funding acquisition) as the new criteria should inform assessment of researchers. We thus should exercise caution to avoid discarding valuable elements or aspects when making comprehensive changes or judgments, as prematurely eliminating the essential along with the dispensable may lead to unintended consequences.

Second, taking disciplinary differences into account, we are aware that we only included biomedical researchers. However, we think that the emphasized relational responsibilities such as leadership, collaboration or supervision are not skills that are solely displayed in biomedical research and most likely the results can be generalized to other disciplines.

Third, it is good to reflect on both reliability and validity of our findings in other research contexts (both disciplinary fields and other countries) since we only included 3 Dutch UMCs in our analysis. Future research could address these limitations by including other disciplines in our methods when designing and testing novel assessment criteria, systematically ask for reasons for non-response and try to organize larger focus groups in other disciplines.

Finally, the results also underline the relation between relational responsibilities and responsible research. Earlier research concluded that responsible research is strongly shaped by research cultures. In these cultures, norms and unwritten rules play a significant role in how researchers behave and which social skills are encouraged [ 21 – 24 ]. Assessing these skills may have an impact on more responsible research practices on the shop floor.

We also would like to highlight the CRediT taxonomy initiative as an initiative to improve researcher assessment. The CrediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) is a classification system developed to provide standardized categories for describing the contributions of individuals to scholarly work. It was created to address the need for more transparent and granular acknowledgment of individual contributions within scholarly publications. The taxonomy outlines various roles that individuals may play in the research process, going beyond traditional authorship credits. This is a better way to give credit where credit is due and further details on the roles authors play and thus give better insight in roles that can help in the assessment of researchers. Another welcome initiative is CoARA, the Coalition for advancing Research Assessment. This European coalition tries to change the current assessment system by improving the assessment of research, researchers and research organizations by recognizing and rewarding the diverse outputs, practices and activities that maximize the quality and impact of research. This requires basing assessment primarily on qualitative judgement, for which peer review is central, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators.

Evaluation labs

Since our project only explored the perspective of biomedical researchers, we wanted to corroborate whether these newly formulated evaluation ideas actually can be implemented in real life settings. Therefore, we conducted two evaluation labs. In these labs, we invited stakeholders (policy makers working at funding bodies in the Netherlands, and policy makers working at the eight University medical centers) to discuss the results of our study and let them reflect on whether the suggestions are implementable and feasible. They were encouraged to think what solutions that were highlighted by the participants of the focus groups could actually be useful for their institution. We asked them to discuss whether and how the themes from the focus group study could help shape new assessment criteria in their institution (exercise 1). After the discussion of the themes, we asked them to rank the themes on importance and feasibility (exercise 2).

Exercise 1.

The participants think that integrity should be an overall assessment criterium that should be included in all themes and included the work environment as part of research integrity. They agree that assessing relational responsibilities remains a very complicated matter as the participants consider assessing them as something subjective and incomplete. However, they do consider it potentially interesting to assess leadership skills as relational responsibility. They specifically highlighted supervision, and the participants suggested that PhD students should evaluate the supervisor and this knowledge should be available to include in promotion and assessment.

As for assessing relational responsibilities, they suggest that 360 degree assessment can be an interesting tool and should be expanded to international colleagues as well. Furthermore, they suggest to include the evaluation of the researchers by their patients and students as well. Finally, the assessment by narrative has the potential to be important. The main concern is that it may expand the workload of researchers even more with administrative work. It is also prone for opportunistic behaviour and manipulation. Besides, achieving trust in the narrative-method can be challenging.

Exercise 2.

We asked the participants to rank the themes by whether they consider this the most essential theme. After careful deliberation, the participants ranked collaboration, integrity and supervision as most essential. After this exercise, they included diversity as an important theme that is extensively discussed in the past years and should be considered as an evaluation criterion. Research groups can benefit from diversity with respect to competences and qualities.

Two main concerns remain in place according to the participants. In their discussions they repeatedly highlighted that there is a natural overlap between the teams and some themes are also covered by other themes (e.g. Is good supervision part of research integrity?). They also noted that scientific rigor and quality are not assessed anywhere and suggested that this should be operationalized as they relate closely with responsible research and are connected with the research integrity theme.

Strengths and limitations

There are some strengths and limitations to this study to bear in mind. First of all, this is the first study that investigates responsible research as a criterion in assessment of researchers in a qualitative way. Qualitative methods are helpful if you want to explore new perspectives or formulate new hypothesis and offers a complimentary contribution to prior quantitative and hypothesis driven research. Secondly, the participants highlight that it is possible to assess relational responsibilities. Since the current practices predominantly rely on quantitative output criteria, this is an important message that may help policymakers to adopt alternative criteria in their assessment procedures. Finally, we were able to test the results of the focus groups in the evaluation labs. This has resulted in interesting thoughts on potential implementation issues, but shine also new light on the discussion of what is actually possible, warranted and needed for policy makers and funders.

Our study also comes with some limitations. First, we only included biomedical researchers. Although we are convinced that most criteria can be generalized to other disciplinary fields, one may argue that in other disciplines (e.g. the humanities) slightly different assessment criteria might apply. Biomedicine was purposefully considered as a strategic research site. Evidence suggests that biomedical research assessment is prone for quantification [ 25 ]. Also, biomedicine is the largest discipline in the Netherlands (and abroad). Besides, dominant organisational forms in biomedical research—research projects, groups and labs—are increasingly found in the social sciences and humanities as well [ 26 , 27 ]. Our findings will thus have implications beyond biomedicine. Future research is thus needed to explore these potential disciplinary differences and should test the proposed assessment criteria. Second, a form of response bias cannot be ruled out. We have sent out invitations to a large set of participants. Most of the invited researchers were asked for the reason for non-participation. Most often, lack of time was the main reason not to participate. Third, it could be that we are still missing perspectives. Some focus groups were rather small and although we reached data saturation for most themes, it could well be that some perspectives are not highlighted.

Changing the system

It is a daunting task to change assessment criteria that have been used for decades in various institutions. The academic enterprise is a complex system and change is often met with a certain skepticism, both by established researchers that have made careers by older assessment criteria (survivor bias) and by the fear that future assessment criteria will change academia into a system where only ‘soft skills’ are assessed. However, change starts with awareness and it helps that there are successful initiatives that have shown their value. Besides, implementation has started by some of the most important stakeholders. From our results we draw the conclusion that responsible research, constituted of both relational responsibilities and more quantifiable assessment criteria, should be a major element of researchers assessment in the future. This entails both 1) rigorous testing of reformed assessment criteria before implementing them in practice and 2) communicating this transparently with researchers, so they know what to expect in future assessments. More attention is still needed on relational responsibilities that, taken into account that they are highly influencing responsible research, should therefore play a more prominent role in future assessment criteria.

In conclusion, our study suggests that relational responsibilities should ideally play a more prominent role in future assessment criteria as these relational responsibilities are reckoned beneficial for the practice of responsible research. Our participants gave several suggestions on how to make these skills measurable and assessable in future assessment criteria. However, the development of these criteria is still in its infancy and future research should focus on how to make these criteria more tangible, concrete and applicable in daily practice.

Supporting information

S1 file. medical ethical review approval_metc_tijdink..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814.s001

S1 Table. Translation Dutch quotes focus groups.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307814.s002

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI

• Our Hiring Process
• Faculty Careers Site ↗
• View All Staff Jobs
• Join Talent Community
• Administrative
• Center for Talented Youth Summer Programs
• Development & Alumni Relations
• Facilities/Skilled Trades
• Grants & Contracts
• Health Care
• Human Resources
• Information Technology
• Student Services

Johns Hopkins strongly encourages, but no longer requires, at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The seasonal flu vaccine requirement remains unchanged. Exceptions may be provided under certain circumstances.  Click here for more information.

• Join Our Talent Community
• Center for Talented Youth On-Campus Summer Programs
• Faculty Careers ↗
• Student Employment ↗
• Current JHU Employees: Internal Career Site ↗

Johns Hopkins strongly encourages, but no longer requires, at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The seasonal flu vaccine requirement remains unchanged. Exceptions may be provided under certain circumstances.  Click here for more information. .

Clinical research site manager.

The BIOS Clinical Trials Coordinating Center within the School of Medicine Department of Neurology is seeking a Clinical Research Site Manager who will deliver to and organize work plans with collaborating 20+ clinical sites across the country in support of clinical trial research goals. Activities include training and managing clinical and data entry personnel at numerous centers regarding specified trial cycle metrics, protocol fidelity, and oversee local, institutional and federally required regulatory compliance across the network of collaborators. This position reports to the BIOS faculty and leadership.

Specific Duties & Responsibilities

• Oversee and coordinate the work of teams in other institutions.
• Establish early lines of communication with the clinical teams as they are identified, selected and prepared for activation.
• Propel accelerated timelines during the trial start-up cycle and during subject accrual, assuring that monthly enrollment goals are met each month across all clinical sites.
• Assist with site feasibility evaluations, detailing the availability of critical local resources necessary to be successful at activating trials and enrollment and protocol performance once a trial begins.
• Assist sites in central IRB on-boarding, ensure timely and accurate submission to IRBs, sponsors and master agreements, local IRB/ethics committee review/approvals, and assist with the collection of all necessary regulatory documents needed before site activation for study subject enrollment.
• Oversee site compliance with investigational products, reporting or safety events and contracting.
• During trial implementation, oversee site performance, assist with subject eligibility and randomization, identify local recruitment problems, personalize remediation programs with site teams, and assure that site investigators quickly implement local solutions to keep the recruitment goal on track for trial completion.
• Conduct weekly (or more frequent) teleconferences and manage monthly training broadcasts with the clinical teams and individually mentor new coordinators and investigators.
• Keep enrollments on track and clinical teams on schedule with established performance expectations.
• Provide support to quality assurance monitors in all facets of work related to communications with, and management of, the enrolling center clinical teams.
• Manage site investigator relationships and execute site start up and performance plans, assign tasks and deadlines to site clinical teams, direct and monitor clinical site work efforts on a daily basis, identify resource needs, perform quality reviews, and escalate functional, quality and timeline issues appropriately.
• Execute lean management processes and methodologies to ensure sites deliver on-time and within the budget, adhere to high quality standards, and benefit the investigative effort by ensuring smooth implementation of trial policies and goals from site launch through study activation and completion of the trial at the local levels.
• Perform self-audits and audit performance of clinical sites; recommend changes to protocol operations based on audit results and revised goals.
• Track proposals and other documentation through signature/approval processes and through collaboration with contracts personnel and IRB Navigators.
• Use professional judgment in handling information and be sensitive to project team, individual and all levels of organizational concerns
• Use data, statistical and quantitative analysis, explanatory and predictive modeling and fact-based management to drive decision making
• Help investigators develop new insights and understanding of performance-based data.
• Serve as liaison and facilitate meetings between project stakeholders and leadership
• Complete and maintain professional documentation for projects and deliverables
• Develop SOPs and assist in the auditing and monitoring of study sites.
• Build and maintain strong, trusting relationships.
• Remain current with a constantly changing clinical research technology and embrace the adoption of innovations to modernize, disseminate, renovate and remodel.
• Serve as a knowledgeable liaison between the BIOS leadership and the research communities.

Additional Knowledge, Skills & Abilities

• Understanding and ability to apply knowledge of clinical trial designs to trial execution.
• Knowledge of GCP/ICH and local regulations.
• Proficient with web-based data collection applications.
• Ability to prioritize own work and work of others daily and weekly.
• Strong organizational skills, analytical and problem-solving abilities, and attention to detail.
• Ability to work with flexibility on several trials simultaneously and to meet various concurrent deadlines.
• Excellent negotiation, facilitation, consensus-building, and diplomacy skills, and exhibit a strong helpline orientation.
• High degree of independent action and ability to adhere to strict timelines.
• Excellent leadership skills with ability to negotiate and work collaboratively.
• Service-oriented with excellent verbal and written communication.
• Ability to make independent judgments and to act on decisions on a daily basis
• Ability to work for long periods of time without direction
• Ability to coordinate multiple sites independently and work constructively as part of a leadership team.
• Bachelor's Degree in related field.
• Five years related experience in delivering effective clinical research management solutions.
• Experience in research protection, federal and regulatory issues, research ethics, pharma law, pharmacovigilance, regulatory compliance, use of centralized IRBs and master agreements, and project management at the task level.
• Additional education may substitute for required experience and additional experience may substitute for required education, to the extent permitted by the JHU equivalency formula.
• Project/system process lifecycle experience
• Minimum of two years direct project management.
• Knowledge of formal project management methodologies.
• Experience representing trial policies and communicating scientific concepts to investigative teams, end-users (faculty and staff), and subject-matter experts; must possess excellent negotiation, facilitation, consensus-building, and diplomacy skills, and exhibit a strong helpline orientation.
• Experience in an academic medicine environment.

Classified Title: Clinical Research Site Manager  Role/Level/Range: ACRP/04/MD   Starting Salary Range: $55,800 - $97,600 Annually (Commensurate with experience)  Employee group: Full Time  Schedule: M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm  Exempt Status: Exempt  Location: Remote  Department name: SOM Neuro BIOS   Personnel area: School of Medicine 

Total Rewards The referenced base salary range represents the low and high end of Johns Hopkins University’s salary range for this position. Not all candidates will be eligible for the upper end of the salary range. Exact salary will ultimately depend on multiple factors, which may include the successful candidate's geographic location, skills, work experience, market conditions, education/training and other qualifications. Johns Hopkins offers a total rewards package that supports our employees' health, life, career and retirement. More information can be found here: https://hr.jhu.edu/benefits-worklife/ .

Education and Experience Equivalency Please refer to the job description above to see which forms of equivalency are permitted for this position. If permitted, equivalencies will follow these guidelines: JHU Equivalency Formula: 30 undergraduate degree credits (semester hours) or 18 graduate degree credits may substitute for one year of experience. Additional related experience may substitute for required education on the same basis. For jobs where equivalency is permitted, up to two years of non-related college course work may be applied towards the total minimum education/experience required for the respective job.

Applicants Completing Studies Applicants who do not meet the posted requirements but are completing their final academic semester/quarter will be considered eligible for employment and may be asked to provide additional information confirming their academic completion date.

Background Checks The successful candidate(s) for this position will be subject to a pre-employment background check. Johns Hopkins is committed to hiring individuals with a justice-involved background, consistent with applicable policies and current practice. A prior criminal history does not automatically preclude candidates from employment at Johns Hopkins University. In accordance with applicable law, the university will review, on an individual basis, the date of a candidate's conviction, the nature of the conviction and how the conviction relates to an essential job-related qualification or function.

Diversity and Inclusion The Johns Hopkins University values diversity, equity and inclusion and advances these through our key strategic framework, the JHU Roadmap on Diversity and Inclusion .

Equal Opportunity Employer All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, or status as a protected veteran.

EEO is the Law https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/22-088_EEOC_KnowYourRights6.12ScreenRdr.pdf

Accommodation Information If you are interested in applying for employment with The Johns Hopkins University and require special assistance or accommodation during any part of the pre-employment process, please contact the Talent Acquisition Office at [email protected] . For TTY users, call via Maryland Relay or dial 711. For more information about workplace accommodations or accessibility at Johns Hopkins University, please visit https://accessibility.jhu.edu/ .

Vaccine Requirements Johns Hopkins University strongly encourages, but no longer requires, at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The COVID-19 vaccine does not apply to positions located in the State of Florida. We still require all faculty, staff, and students to receive the seasonal flu vaccine . Exceptions to the COVID and flu vaccine requirements may be provided to individuals for religious beliefs or medical reasons. Requests for an exception must be submitted to the JHU vaccination registry.  This change does not apply to the School of Medicine (SOM). SOM hires must be fully vaccinated with an FDA COVID-19 vaccination and provide proof of vaccination status. For additional information, applicants for SOM positions should visit https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine/  and all other JHU applicants should visit https://covidinfo.jhu.edu/health-safety/covid-vaccination-information/ .

The following additional provisions may apply, depending upon campus. Your recruiter will advise accordingly. The pre-employment physical for positions in clinical areas, laboratories, working with research subjects, or involving community contact requires documentation of immune status against Rubella (German measles), Rubeola (Measles), Mumps, Varicella (chickenpox), Hepatitis B and documentation of having received the Tdap (Tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis) vaccination. This may include documentation of having two (2) MMR vaccines; two (2) Varicella vaccines; or antibody status to these diseases from laboratory testing. Blood tests for immunities to these diseases are ordinarily included in the pre-employment physical exam except for those employees who provide results of blood tests or immunization documentation from their own health care providers. Any vaccinations required for these diseases will be given at no cost in our Occupational Health office.

• Careers Home
• Current Employees
• Clery Notice
• Sustainability

© Copyright 2024

Research Financial Analyst/Fund Manager - Remote - 132042

Job description, #132042 research financial analyst/fund manager - remote.

UCSD Layoff from Career Appointment : Apply by 9/11/24 for consideration with preference for rehire. All layoff applicants should contact their Employment Advisor.

Special Selection Applicants : Apply by 9/23/24. Eligible Special Selection clients should contact their Disability Counselor for assistance.

DESCRIPTION

The UCSD Health Sciences organization encompasses 14 departments (12 clinical, 2 basic sciences), 2 professional schools (School of Medicine and Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences), 2 hospitals, and various other programs and units all dedicated towards fulfilling the Health Sciences missions. As a top-ranking, future oriented organization, we offer challenging career opportunities in a fast-paced and innovative environment. The Vice Chancellor’s Office follows a progressive philosophy of career-path development for itsemployees.

The Research Service Core has been established as a new shared business service center to provide Health Sciences departments with efficient standardized Pre And Post award Extramural Research Fund Management support. The unit will build Systems, tools and training courses to support standardized and automated systems supporting research administration best practices. These new processes and operating guidelines are available to all VCHS departments; while staffing is provided on an opt-in basis for those departments in need or interested in innovative program changes. The unit is interfacing across multiple functional areas which include human resources, finance, and sponsored projects.

This unit will play a critical role in the success of the central service center model.

Under the general supervision of the Contracts & Grants Supervisor in the Research Service Core and with the overall leadership of the Research Service Core Sr. Director, the incumbent is responsible for providing comprehensive extramural funds financial analysis and complex fiscal management for multiple departments or divisions assigned to the analyst. The assignment will cover pre and post award and carry up to approximately $8 million in sponsored project funding sources. The assigned financial management portfolio involves multiple PI's, multiple funding sources (Federal, State, private grants including program projects; contracts, gifts, clinical trials, sub awards, fellowships, service agreements, and UC Foundation transfers). Will work with numerous different agencies to include, but not limited to NIH, DOD, AHA as well as state and county agencies and private funding. Will work with multiple international and domestic institutions and multiple sites (e.g. Scripps Research Institute and Rady Children's Hospital - San Diego). Will provide complex financial reporting and continuous analysis of revenue and expenditures. Primary client is the principle investigator and the analyst serves in the context of the department or division management. Analyst will have contact with Division Chiefs and Chairs. Establish new policies and procedures and revise existing procedures to meet changing needs. Provide forecasting for short and long term financial planning. Identify problem areas, formulate alternative solutions and make recommendations for a wide variety of financial and administrative issues. Utilize standardized procedures and automated systems to create a variety of complex internal reports and validation of data for management use. This position has the authority to make decisions with the PI regarding fiscal administration of all the projects.

Uses skills as a seasoned, experienced research administrator to independently develop and/or oversee research proposals, awards and/or transactions related to contract and grant management and maintains contract and grant records in compliance with institutional research sponsor policies. Works on awards of diverse scope where analysis of data requires thorough understanding of complex regulations. Completes and approves transactions for signature by manager or other authorized institutional official. Works on complex awards that may involve multiple investigators and/or multiple sub-awards. Guides less experienced staff. Central Role (CR): Is eligible for delegated signature authority (may vary by campus). Department Role (DR): Typically works on complex grants / contracts that require task budgets, option years, multiple investigators and multiple sub-awards.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

Seven years of related experience, education/training, OR a Bachelor’s degree in related area plus three years of related experience/training.

Thorough understanding of research administration guidelines of Federal and non-Federal sponsors supporting research and educational activities, preferably in a university environment.

Thorough knowledge of applicable compliance requirements related to use of human or animal subjects in research, financial conflict of interest, biosafety, etc.

Ability to manage significant volume of transactions.

Ability to perform complex financial analysis and customized reporting.

Demonstrated competence in the use of spreadsheet and database software in financial analysis, fiscal management and financial reports. Demonstrated skill in using a variety of computer systems, including database, spreadsheet, word-processing, and Internet systems.

Ability to maintain independent judgment; strong organization and communication skills; and a customer service focus across broad and diverse subject areas.

Maintains current knowledge of compliance regulations in all areas of research administration.

Demonstrated experience with the applications of principles and practices of financial management, fiscal planning and analysis; experience in principles and practices of fund accounting, cost analysis and audit procedures including UCSD Internal audit requirements.

Demonstrated knowledge of University policies and procedures relating to contract and grants; and accounting. Ability to independently interpret, analyze, and implement appropriate policies in a given situation.

Demonstrated experience analyzing expenditures, recognizing trends in order to support budget adjustments.

Demonstrated experience in developing, producing and completing complex reports for various funding agencies; projecting multi-year expenditures and outcomes as they relate to individual projects, and the department as a whole; experience applying programmatic knowledge to coordinate financial aspects of award administration.

PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS

Demonstrated experience with UCSD Personnel Payroll System (PPS) policies and procedures.

Knowledge of University policies and procedures regarding purchasing, returned goods, travel, disbursement, inventory, and ability to work collaboratively with contacts involved in these processes.

Demonstrated experience with UCSD on-line and web based accounting systems (IFIS, FinancialLink, etc.).

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

• Employment is subject to a criminal background check.

Pay Transparency Act

Annual Full Pay Range: $69,500 - $123,500 (will be prorated if the appointment percentage is less than 100%)

Hourly Equivalent: $33.29 - $59.15

Factors in determining the appropriate compensation for a role include experience, skills, knowledge, abilities, education, licensure and certifications, and other business and organizational needs. The Hiring Pay Scale referenced in the job posting is the budgeted salary or hourly range that the University reasonably expects to pay for this position. The Annual Full Pay Range may be broader than what the University anticipates to pay for this position, based on internal equity, budget, and collective bargaining agreements (when applicable).

If employed by the University of California, you will be required to comply with our Policy on Vaccination Programs, which may be amended or revised from time to time. Federal, state, or local public health directives may impose additional requirements. If applicable, life-support certifications (BLS, NRP, ACLS, etc.) must include hands-on practice and in-person skills assessment; online-only certification is not acceptable.

UC San Diego Health Sciences is comprised of our School of Medicine, Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, The Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, and our Student Health and Well-Being Department. We have long been at the forefront of translational - or "bench-to-bedside" - research, transforming patient care through discovery and innovation leading to new drugs and technologies. Translational research is carried out every day in the hundreds of clinical trials of promising new therapies offered through UC San Diego Health, and in the drive of our researchers and clinician-scientists who are committed to having a significant impact on patient care. We invite you to join our team!

Applications/Resumes are accepted for current job openings only. For full consideration on any job, applications must be received prior to the initial closing date. If a job has an extended deadline, applications/resumes will be considered during the extension period; however, a job may be filled before the extended date is reached.

To foster the best possible working and learning environment, UC San Diego strives to cultivate a rich and diverse environment, inclusive and supportive of all students, faculty, staff and visitors. For more information, please visit UC San Diego Principles of Community .

UC San Diego is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, age or protected veteran status.

For the University of California’s Affirmative Action Policy please visit: https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4010393/PPSM-20 For the University of California’s Anti-Discrimination Policy, please visit: https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/1001004/Anti-Discrimination

UC San Diego is a smoke and tobacco free environment. Please visit smokefree.ucsd.edu for more information.

UC San Diego Health maintains a marijuana and drug free environment. Employees may be subject to drug screening.

Application Instructions

Please click on the link below to apply for this position. A new window will open and direct you to apply at our corporate careers page. We look forward to hearing from you!

Share This Page

Posted : 9/6/2024

Job Reference # : 132042

JOIN OUR TALENT COMMUNITY

Interested in working at UC San Diego and UC San Diego Health but can't find a position that's right for you? Submit your resume to our Talent Community to be considered for future opportunities that may align with your expertise. Please note, by joining our Talent Community, you are not applying for a position with UC San Diego Campus and Health. Rather, this is an additional way for our Talent Acquisition team to find candidates with specific credentials, if an opportunity arises. You are still encouraged to regularly check back on our career site or sign up for Job Alerts to apply for openings that are a match for your background.

• Career Sites by Recruiting.com

Research Associate

University of York - School of Arts and Creative Technologies

The School of Arts and Creative Technologies has a world class reputation for research in the screen industries, music and theatre. We are seeking a research associate to join the School to work on a new research project exploring virtual production and equality, diversity and inclusion.

Co-Producing EDI Interventions for Virtual Production is a four year AHRC-funded research project which seeks to address structural inequalities in the film and television sector. Working with partner companies and freelancers, the project will co-produce, test and evaluate new ways of working in film and television that offer fairer and more inclusive forms of employment.

This project builds on work undertaken as part of the Screen Industries Growth Network and XR Stories.

The research associate will join the School of Arts and Creative Technologies and work with an interdisciplinary team led by Dr Jon Swords (project lead), with Prof Jude Brereton (co-lead), Dr Anna Einarsdottir (co-lead) and Dr Nina Willment (research associate). The main purpose of the role is to conduct qualitative research under the supervision of senior colleagues and to contribute to the production of research, industry and policy outputs. You will be expected to prepare ethics approvals; contribute to interview schedules and design; carry out qualitative research activities; code, analyse and manage data; take part in dissemination activities and prepare data for archiving. We also expect you to make substantial contributions to scholarly publications and to raise the public profile of the project through effective use of social media to maximise impact and sustainability of research outcomes.

The post includes funding to support the successful candidate’s career development, and access to the University of York’s Building Research and Innovation Capacity team who provide a programme of training and support available for research staff and postdocs.

Skills, Experience & Qualification needed

• PhD, or equivalent research experience in a subject relevant to the project
• Knowledge in the field of equality, diversity and inclusion either in, or which can be applied to the UK screen industries
• Knowledge of working practices in the creative industries
• Knowledge of a range of qualitative research techniques and methodologies
• Ability to write up research work for publication in high profile journals and engage in public dissemination
• Highly developed communication skills to engage effectively with a wide ranging audience, both orally and in writing, using a range of media

Applicants should submit a covering letter (not more than three pages) and a full CV.

Shortlisted candidates will be provided with an indication of the areas/topics that the interview questions will cover before the interview. Interviews will take place on Zoom and shortlisted applications will be asked to prepare and deliver a short presentation.

Interview date: mid-October

For informal enquiries: please contact Dr Jon Swords on [email protected]

The University strives to be diverse and inclusive – a place where we can ALL be ourselves.

We particularly encourage applications from people who identify as Black, Asian or from a Minority Ethnic background, who are underrepresented at the University.

We offer family friendly, flexible working arrangements, with forums and inclusive facilities to support our staff.  #EqualityatYork

Share on social media

Advert information

Type / Role:

Subject Area(s):

Location(s):

PhD Alert Created

Job alert created.

Your PhD alert has been successfully created for this search.

Your job alert has been successfully created for this search.

Account Verification Missing

In order to create multiple job alerts, you must first verify your email address to complete your account creation

jobs.ac.uk Account Required

In order to create multiple alerts, you must create a jobs.ac.uk jobseeker account

Alert Creation Failed

Unfortunately, your account is currently blocked. Please login to unblock your account.

Email Address Blocked

We received a delivery failure message when attempting to send you an email and therefore your email address has been blocked. You will not receive job alerts until your email address is unblocked. To do so, please choose from one of the two options below.

Max Alerts Reached

A maximum of 5 Job Alerts can be created against your account. Please remove an existing alert in order to create this new Job Alert

Creation Failed

Unfortunately, your alert was not created at this time. Please try again.

Create PhD Alert

Create job alert.

When you create this PhD alert we will email you a selection of PhDs matching your criteria. When you create this job alert we will email you a selection of jobs matching your criteria. Our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy apply to this service. Any personal data you provide in setting up this alert is processed in accordance with our Privacy Notice

Max Saved Jobs Reached

A maximum of 500 Saved Jobs can be created against your account. Please remove an existing Saved Job in order to add a new Saved Job.

Please sign in or register for an account to save a job.

More jobs from University of York

Director of Finance

SEIY Research Associate

Postdoctoral Research Associate

Research Fellow in Evidence Synthesis

Show all jobs for this employer …

More jobs like this

Course Leader BA (Hons) Acting

Fellows by Examination (Junior Research Fellows) Competition

Lecturer in Contemporary Art Theory

Research Associate in AI for Remote Virtual Production

Senior Lecturer Film Production (Editing and Post-production)

Join in and follow us

Copyright © jobs.ac.uk 1998 - 2024

• Career Advice
• Jobs by Email
• Advertise a Job
• Terms of use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility Statement

Browser Upgrade Recommended

For the best user experience, we recommend viewing jobs.ac.uk on one of the following:

Cookie information

Welcome to the EY careers job search site. This website is based on the SuccessFactors software provided by SAP. On this page, functional and optional cookies are used to improve your experience and design our careers site more user-friendly and in line with your needs. In this context, cookies from providers in third countries may also be used and data may be transmitted to providers such as social media services outside the EU. For this we require your consent. By clicking "Accept All Cookies", you agree to these. This also includes your consent to the transmission of certain personal data to third countries, including the USA, in accordance with Art. 49 (1) (a) GDPR. You can select your settings by clicking “Modify Cookie Preferences” to confirm your choices from the optional cookie tracking and selecting the required cookies required to remain on the site. You can change your selection at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of the page.

• Deutsch (Deutschland)
• English (United Kingdom)
• English (United States)
• Español (México)
• Français (Canada)
• Français (France)
• עִבְרִית (יִשְׂרָאֵל)
• Português (Brasil)
• Careers at EY
• What you can do here
• What it's like to work here
• How to join us
• Experienced jobs
• Student jobs

The Job is no longer available.

• Connect with us
• Our locations
• Legal and privacy
• Labor condition applications

Cookie Consent Manager

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Required Cookies

These cookies are required to use this website and can't be turned off.

Advertising Cookies

These cookies serve ads that are relevant to your interests. You may freely choose to accept or decline these cookies at any time. Note that certain functionality that these third parties make available may be impacted if you do not accept these cookies.