Implementing the Researcher Development Framework
•Download as PPT, PDF•
2 likes•1,044 views
A joint Vitae NW & YNE Hub good practice workshop held in Manchester on 26/05/2011. Slides are from the introductory session. More information about this event can be found at www.vitae.ac.uk/nwgp11
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (7)
Similar to Implementing the Researcher Development Framework
Similar to Implementing the Researcher Development Framework (20)
More from Emma Gillaspy
More from Emma Gillaspy (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Implementing the Researcher Development Framework
- 1. Implementing the Researcher Development Framework A joint Vitae NW & YNE Hub good practice workshop
- 2. Programme 11:00-11:20 12:30-14:00 16:00-17:00 Image FlickrID: University of Exeter Image FlickrID: mickeysucks Image FlickrID: .Imelda 10:00 About the Researcher Development Framework 11:20 What are the issues, challenges and opportunities in implementing the RDF? 11:50 & 14:00 Parallel discussion sessions 14:40 Finding solutions 15:50 Moving forward
- 3. An introduction to the Researcher Development Framework Dr Vivien Hodges Vitae®, © 2011 The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited
- 12. Researcher feedback ‘ It put career development back into the forefront of my mind as it can often slip back when you’re engaged in what you’re doing day to day.’ ‘ The RDF will encourage me to be more proactive about my career development as it provides me with a framework (list of milestones).’ ‘ It was very good for me to reflect. I realised that nothing is stopping me but myself. The sky is the limit.’ ‘ I’ve always thought of myself as being quite ambitious, driven and focussed on what I want, but the framework made me realise I can have a much larger vision.’
- 14. Development and validation Dr Julie Reeves
- 19. Information and resources www.vitae.ac.uk/rdf Dr Emma Gillaspy
- 20. RDF/RDS
- 23. Glossary & FAQs
- 26. Graphics
- 31. Image FlickrID: 姒儿喵喵
Editor's Notes
- Comes out of JSS and initiative of Policy Forum 2008 Precursor projects at Glasgow Caledonia and Manchester Universities Empirical data from analysis of semi-structured interviews with > 100 experienced researchers Phenomenographic method – Gerlese Akerlind – Individuals experience the same phenonemena differently – we only have a partial perspective – such as being a researcher. But if we obtain sufficient perspectives we may get an idea about the whole. Not pre-defined, but by contrasting the data looking for the similarities and differences in what people have to say about a phenonemena. For us, this approach resulted in over 1,000 characteristics and variants being identified: – For example: a number of people said it was important to be able to analyse data as a researcher we noted that as a characteristic, but a few also said it was important to be able to analyse other peoples data not just your own, so we noted that as a variant. The resulting information was organised and re-organised (or clustered) into areas that seemed most appropriate. Much debate over this and the order of things. The project started with 9 main areas and, after much discussion and deliberation, finished with 4. Much debate over ‘clusters’ and ‘order’
- What wasn’t mentioned – specialist groups came into their own. What wasn’t mentioned – equally noticeable Enterprise, Collaboration & teamwork, Public engagement, Income generation as opposed to grant applications Global perspective, New technologies and research areas, Ethics, health & safety Enterprise – not even mentioned as a characteristic: be interesting to run survey in 10 years time. Collaboration and teamwork - Teamwork - no mention of this although managing individual relationships was viewed as significant by the interviewees. The use of new technology to promote research presence. Internationalism = absent. We drew on the sector and a range of stakeholders to help plug the gaps and give us their perspective. RCUK, Beacons for PE, RIN, careers – employers at the end. Consultation – Sept 2010 Feedback from individuals and project group and advisory group. Expert panel – who validated the RDF. Some given the whole RDF others a Domain - interviewed closely about. Minor tweaks – but all could identify themselves in it. Sector wide view = extremely powerful. Not just what an individual supervisor or PI says is important for a research career – but what the sector says is – based on the professions’ view. May not all be relevant at any one time – but it probably will be relevant in one way or another over time
- Key characteristics include: Having a passion for and curiosity for research area – Use knowledge innovatively and imaginatively Disciplinary differences were neither marked nor significant IN the Research – RDF drawing them out. Outstanding people keep on trying - they don’t give up, they deal with rejection and keep applying, submitting etc. Able to make links within and beyond academia to non-academic, PERSEVRE The characteristics of an outstanding performer appear to be the opposite of those associated with a PGR - i.e. broad range of intellectual focus, interdisciplinary NOT IN RDF - Underperformers – unable to apply knowledge in innovative way, possess an overly narrow focus, ‘terror of rejection’, lack confidence, lack a coherent career plan – never complete things, always talking about them but not actually bringing them to fruition, unable to balance teaching, research and admin etc. Two kinds of researchers linked – but it is not about knowledge per se rather how it is used.
- JSS was one dimensional – this is 3D. Richness, depth, flexibility. Assist individuals, at all stages, with their professional development – i.e. from new researchers to those with Global renown Development framework: knowledge, behaviours and attitudes appropriate for the profession Ethics, integrity, academic writing & publications, enthusiasm, self–confidence and perseverance. Passion and drive not so critical if you are a dentist Shift from ‘training and skills’ to ‘development’ and implies a shift from ‘measuring’ to ‘evidencing’ (personal view) Challenges: Large and scary! Prone to the pitfalls of ‘Perception’ ‘ data’, ‘ethics’, ‘experiment’ Resist the temptation of ‘Phasing’ Can’t measure enthusiasm or creativity Only useful if you want to stay in academia… Audience – who is it for? different perspectives emerge from stakeholders with different purposes for RDF