September 23, 2025 • 21 mins
Sarah reports from the International Research Culture Conference #IRCC25 which was held at the University of Warwick on 17 September 2025. It features contributions from Rika Nair, Alys Kay and Dolly Coates, as well as excerpts from Sarah's talk on professional development for research enablers.
Sarah and her guests talk about
- Why the recognising the contributions of research-adjacent roles is a key research culture issue
- Challenges research-adjacent professionals can face when trying to make progress in their careers
- The System Shuffle game which aims to make the hidden labour in research teams more visible
- How the language used to describe research-adjacent roles influences how they are perceived
Find out more
- Read the show notes and transcript on the podcast website
- Connect with Rika Nair, Alys Kay or Dolly Coates on LinkedIn
- Read Alys's LinkedIn post about the System Shuffle game
- Find out more about Research Culture Knowledge Exchange, IRCC25 and the work of the National Centre for Research Culture
- Read the Wellcome report 'What researcher's think about the culture they work in'
About Research Adjacent
- Where are you listening from? Share a pic and tag @ResearchAdjacent on LinkedIn, Instagram or BlueSky
- Fill out the research-adjacent careers quiz
- Sign up to the Research Adjacent newsletter
- Email a comment, question or suggestion
- Leave Sarah a voice message
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Rika Nair (00:01):
A lot of the research culture challenges that we all face
are actually common to differentinstitutions, and they can't be solved
by one institution because it is thewhole system that needs to change.
Sarah McLusky (00:11):
But the point is, when you put those people together
working on the same project.
The differences are incredibly stark,and that is the issue, and that's
why it feels like it's not fair.
Alys Kay (00:26):
I started to think, what if we could make a game that would
actually make it safe to talk aboutsome of these difficult things.
To talk about roles, to talkabout assumptions, to surface
the hidden labor and hiddenwork that often go unrecognized.
Sarah McLusky (00:43):
Hello there.
I'm Sarah McLusky andthis is Research Adjacent.
Each episode I talk to amazing researchadjacent professionals about what
they do and why it makes a difference.
Keep listening to find out why wethink the research adjacent space
is where the real magic happens.
(01:04):
Hello and welcome to Research Adjacent.
I'm your host, Sarah McLusky,and today's episode is something
a little bit different.
It's a report from the InternationalResearch Culture Conference, which
was held at Warwick Universityon the 17th of September, 2025.
Warwick hosts the event as theuniversity is also home to the
National Center for Research Culture.
(01:24):
But before we get onto my report fromthe event, I just thought I would do
a quick aside on research culture foranyone who isn't familiar with the term
and why I see this podcast as fittingsquarely into the research culture box.
Like any workplace, universities andresearch organizations have their
own ways of working that have evolvedover time and for around a decade now.
(01:45):
There have been concerns raisedthat some of the ways, these
ways of working are a bit toxic.
The intense competition for funding,the publish or perish culture, that
can lead to bullying and precarity andthe celebration of star researchers,
while colleagues who did the bruntof the work are often overlooked.
Universities are under huge pressureto demonstrate excellence and that can
(02:05):
lead to dubious practices and burnout.
If you want an overview of thesechallenges, then the Wellcome report,
'What researchers think about the culturethey work in' provides a good summary, and
I'll put a link to that in the show notes.
This podcast is very much rooted inthat research culture conversation.
When that Wellcome report cameout, I was working for a Wellcome
funded research institute and Ididn't think it went far enough.
(02:27):
I thought there was too much talkabout researchers and not enough
about the experiences of the otherpeople who make up the research teams.
In other words, theresearch adjacent people.
Now I am a communicator, so Iturned to the channel that I had
available to try and raise theprofile and voice the experiences of
all the people impacted by researchculture, not just the researchers.
(02:50):
So anyway, here we are.
About five years ago, funders putsome money into trying to investigate
and change research culture, and thisconference is just one of the things
that has grown out of that investment.
This is the third year thatWarwick has hosted the event, but
it was my first time attending.
I went because I successfully pitcheda talk on professional development
for research adjacent staff, andthere'll be more about that later.
(03:13):
And it also gave me an opportunityto catch up with some other folks
who care about raising the profileof research adjacent staff.
Some of them who I have been LinkedInfriends with for a good while now.
One of those was Rika Nair, who isthe research culture manager at the
University of Warwick, and I asked her totell us a bit more about the conference
and what they hope it will achieve.
(03:35):
We're here at the InternationalResearch Culture Conference, IRCC 2025.
I wonder if you could tellus a bit about the event and
what is happening here today.
Rika Nair (03:46):
So this event has really stemmed from the fact that a lot of the
research culture challenges that we allface are actually common to different
institutions, and they can't be solvedby one institution because it is the
whole system that needs to change.
So what we're trying to do heretoday is to bring all the different
pieces of the puzzle together.
And I think one big aspect of changingresearch culture and convincing senior
(04:06):
leaders will be showing examples ofwhere there already is good practice.
In my mind, benchmarking isreally important for making
that argument and that evidencethat things can be different.
So that's what I'm hoping is gonnacome from this conference, as Kirsty
has said in her keynote, that we willessentially have things that people
can take away with them to their owninstitutions that we can point the
finger and say, this is working wellthere, why can't we do it here as well?
Sarah McLusky (04:29):
As you might expect, the day included a variety of
talks, workshops, and plenaries.
We started with a talk from StevenHill of Research England, and
a panel sharing perspectives onresearch culture around the globe.
Speakers from South Africa, Ireland,and Australia confirmed that the
challenges are similar elsewherewith big issues being precarity,
impact, EDI and collaboration.
(04:50):
After coffee, we went into breakoutsessions and that's where I had a
slot speaking as part of a panelon professional development.
As listeners to this podcast,I'm sure I don't need to tell
you that research adjacent staffoften inhabit a challenging space.
We often work alongside researchers onthe same research projects, sometimes with
more responsibility or influence than theresearchers, but for those on professional
(05:13):
services contract, the conditions ofemployment can be vastly different.
Opportunities for professional developmentare patchy, recognition is siloed, and
promotion usually isn't even an option.
Here's some extracts from mytalk, which was called Snakes and
Ladders, the reality of professionaldevelopment for research enablers.
(05:34):
Most people on professional servicescontract, you can't get promoted.
Generally it has to be thejob that gets regraded.
It can't be the person who gets promoted.
Then there is also the fact that if youdo want to move on, often it'll be you'll
have to go to another organization, goto another department, wait for your
(05:55):
manager to leave, and that's essentiallyoften the options that are available.
And from my own personalexperience, again and again, I
would go to look for training.
There would be training would come uparound things like public engagement
or science communication, and we weretold, no, that's for researchers only.
But what I think a lot of senior leadersin universities don't realize a lot
(06:19):
of people doing those jobs have neverbeen formally trained in those things.
It's excluding people who could actuallytake that and bring it to their job.
Then we come to recognition,and this again a real example.
From an organization I usedto work in, I'm not gonna name
names because it is common.
(06:40):
They sent round an announcementthat because of the success they'd
had that year, they announced thatseveral of the staff, several of the
academics were promoted to professor,associate professor, whatever it was.
The research manager who I knowand I know how hard they work,
got a 250 pound bonus, one off.
(07:00):
And that, because that isall that was available.
Now it's not, again, it's not thatthe managers there maybe didn't want
to give them more acknowledgement,but that is all that was available
within the institution to recognizehow hard that person had worked.
And it comes against this backcurrent of this narrative of
(07:20):
bullshit admin jobs in academia.
So again, undermining of the rolethat these people undermining the
work they do as often invisibleglue that holds things together.
So all of this just reinforces theidea that these roles are second class
citizens and that their contributiondoesn't count, isn't valuable.
(07:42):
What is happening at the moment isa deeply unfair two tier system.
Now, I'm not saying everything's perfectfor academics 'cause it's clearly not.
Also, a lot of the challenges that arefaced by professional staff are actually
really common in every other workspace.
So these are not thingsthat are unique to academia.
But the point is, when youput those people together
(08:03):
working on the same project.
The differences are incredibly stark,and that is the issue, and that's
why it feels like it's not fair.
It's particularly important to thinkabout this in the context that research
enablers are considerably more likelyto be female as well, so there's an
(08:24):
equality and diversity dimension to this.
It was refreshing that I wasn't theonly presenter or poster talking
about research adjacent professionals.
When I've been to conferences likethis in the past, I have been taken
aback at how even in a room of researchprofessional staff, the conversation
is often focused solely on researchers.
(08:45):
One session that also centered thecontributions of research adjacent
professionals was led by Alys Kay . Imissed it because it clashed with my talk,
but I caught up with Alys afterwards.
Alys Kay (08:56):
System Shuffle started as an idea 'cause I had the privilege
of interviewing 60 plus peopleall over the research ecosystem in
all different roles for a project.
And these were particularly diverse roles,lots of different levels of seniority,
different types of institutions.
And one of the things that really struckme when I was reflecting on that was how
(09:16):
many people feel powerless regardlessof where they are in the hierarchy.
Actually, people often feel quite isolatedand I think all of us, whatever role we
have often struggle to imagine what otherpeople's roles are, to see the system, to
think about the system as a whole thing.
And so I started to think, whatif we could make a game that would
(09:41):
actually make it safe to talk aboutsome of these difficult things.
To talk about roles, to talkabout assumptions, to surface
the hidden labor and hiddenwork that often go unrecognized.
So particularly in roles liketechnicians, research managers research,
software engineers, these are rolesthat actually keep the system going,
keep research going, but actually alot of their work is unrecognized.
(10:03):
So what System Shuffle actuallydoes, everyone sits down at a table.
They are randomly given a role.
They then have to inhabitthat role for the game.
Often that's quite an uncomfortablemoment, you turn over a role.
And you might stumble and be a bitconfused, but that's okay because the
game is actually about discussion.
It's not about winning or losing,it's all about opening up spaces for
(10:26):
curiosity and for fun and for safediscussion about difficult conversations.
I think a thing that often comes out, anobservable thing that people often comment
on is actually the recognition thatoften we hold hierarchies in our heads,
essentially, and we permission our ownbehaviors in whatever role we are, based
(10:48):
on stuff that we are maybe semi-consciousof or not totally conscious of.
And actually what the game does isit objectify that and surfaces that.
There's something about powers thatwe all have a legacy of assumptions.
And we all have rules that we abideby that are almost implicit and it
actually makes it explicit and thereforewe can think about what do we need to
(11:10):
do to enable recognition of differentpeople and diverse types of work.
Sarah McLusky (11:15):
It sounds fantastic.
It seems like we need to geteverybody out there playing the game.
Alys Kay (11:18):
So playing the game, which is created by the Research Culture Enablers
Network something that's really importantabout the game is it's co-created by many
diff different participants and voices.
And we're committed to other peoplebeing able to take the game and develop
it and remix it in any way that worksfor them in their environments as well.
So this autumn, the little group of peoplebehind the game, my co-conspirators, we
(11:43):
are putting together an online versionthat will be freely available to everyone.
And we're also working on making itdistributable so other people can use
it or actually create sets themselves.
Sarah McLusky (11:55):
Alys also sent me these reflections afterwards.
She said, 'one thing to emphasizeis that System Shuffle doesn't
end when the cards go down.
There's always a livelydiscussion afterwards, and it
isn't about who wins the game.
It's about what surfaces.
It generates critical thinking.
People start naming hidden hierarchies,questioning assumptions, and reflecting
on their own roles in a way thatthey rarely do in day-to-day work.
(12:17):
Every group produces a differentinsight because their lived experiences
are different, and that diversityof outcomes is what makes it
powerful.' The System Shuffle Game
was co-created by Alysand Rika, who you've
already heard, as well as Ellen Cole from Northumbria University,
Nicola Simcock from Newcastle, and AndrewMoss from Durham University, and as
somebody based up in the Northeast, I'mdelighted to hear that it is something
(12:40):
that has included a team from this region.
As you heard, System Shuffle is a newproject, but I look forward to seeing how
it develops, and from what Alys said, Ilove the way it gently pushes people to
see things from a different perspectiveand consider what might be possible
because it's that individual perspectiveshift that actually changes things.
(13:00):
Another thing that is constantlyevolving is exactly how we talk
about the people who contribute toresearch but aren't researchers.
As you well know by now, I callthem research adjacent, but you
might have also heard me talkingabout how I'm not actually
particularly attached to the term.
It was interesting to hear that Rikaand the Research Enablers Network
have been thinking about this too.
Rika Nair (13:22):
So the thinking behind the Research Culture Enablers Network
is that it's quite a new role.
research culture is quite a newtopic, or was at least two years ago.
But it continues to be an aspectthat institutions are exploring,
especially with the different messagingthat we're getting around REF.
And so we've had these new teams andthese new colleagues and I wanted to
create a community for them to share,for us to share really share challenges.
(13:45):
And also I've got the hypothesis thatmost people going into these roles have
experienced research and have opinionson how things can be done better.
And so by bringing them together, I'mhoping that we can develop solutions.
So we've got a LinkedIn group,so that's the Research Culture
Knowledge Exchange Group.
So it's probably a good place to startto see how the discussion has been
(14:05):
going and to contribute your ideas.
Sarah McLusky (14:07):
So one thing that, I find really interesting and that relates to
our podcast is the kind of language thatwe use to describe these sorts of roles.
So I use research adjacent.
You've said your community at the momentuses research enabler, but what are your
thoughts on the language that we use?
Rika Nair (14:24):
So definitely one of the areas where I think it conflicts with parity
of esteem is when we talk about theseadditional roles as being non-academic.
Or even supporting researchers when a lotof these research enabling roles actually
directly support the research itself.
We're all here for the research.
And so there's been a lot of discussionactually gravitating towards whether
(14:47):
the word enabler is the right one.
I don't see it as enabling with anynegative connotation, but enablers
being the opposite to blockers.
So for things to happen, you need theseenablers, but I can see where people might
think that term is not active enough.
And so I think a new umbrella term thatwe're hoping to share with the community
is research professional, which wethink would be an umbrella term for all
(15:09):
the contributions beyond technical andacademic that make research excellent.
Sarah McLusky (15:14):
If we settle on research professionals, I can live
with that, although I'm not gonnachange the podcast name anytime soon.
Another joy of being at the event wastelling people about the podcast, whether
they had never heard of it or were alreadyan avid listener, and it was a delight
to meet people who had heard the podcast,including Anna Sharman and Dolly Coates.
I asked Dolly what stuckwith her about the day.
Dolly Coates (15:38):
I'm Dolly and I work as a ref impact associate
for the University of Bristol'sFaculty of Science and Engineering.
And I guess a highlight of theday for me has been conversations
around the research iceberg, which Ithink was what Sarah phrased it as.
Really all the background workthat goes on beneath the surface to
make sure that research is reallyexcellent and how we can more formally
(16:00):
acknowledge that and promote it.
Through continued professionaldevelopment opportunities.
So yeah, that's beenreally interesting to hear.
Sarah McLusky (16:09):
If you want to know what Dolly means by the research iceberg,
I'll post a picture in the show notes.
It's a way of visualizing the fact thatwhat the outside world sees as research
is actually a huge collective effort,including a wide range of people whose
contributions are not normally recognized.
Basically, exactly whatthis podcast is all about.
Maybe I should rename itas the research iceberg.
(16:31):
Now let's stick with research adjacent.
This is getting too complicated.
So the day ended with a keynote from CatDavies, the outgoing Dean of Research
Culture at the University of Leeds.
Unfortunately, I had to leave beforethe end, but given everything I know
about what is going on at Leeds, andthat includes fabulous work, previous
guests, Ged Hall and Nick Sheppard, aswell as Ruth Winden, who has promised
(16:54):
me that she will be a guest eventuallyand the rest of the team behind the
Research Culture Uncovered Podcast.
When it comes to tackling some ofthe challenges around the recognition
and professional developmentfor research professionals,
Leeds are the ones to watch.
So I have no doubt that Cat has somereally valuable insights, and I'm hoping
that they will post a video of hertalk online so I can catch up later.
(17:15):
FYI Leeds are also settled on usingthe term research professionals,
so it sounds like that mightjust be the one that sticks.
We shall wait and see.
I wrote the first iteration of thispodcast episode on a cramped train
home from Birmingham to Newcastle, andone thing I was ruminating on was the
challenge of turning research into action.
(17:37):
In the conference it feltlike we're still talking about
problems without many solutions.
Research culture could easily becomeanother part of academic life where we
spend endless amounts of time analyzingand researching the problem without
actually doing anything about it.
As Cat intimated at the start of hertalk, research culture initiatives
have boomed over the last few yearsdue to UKRI and other funding.
(18:00):
But has anything actually changed?
Interestingly, this was the exactquestion that I was asked by Dan
King of Research Consulting Limited.
After my talk, he asked,are things getting better?
And I gave my honestanswer, which was yes.
I do think things are slowly gettingbetter for people in research
adjacent roles, and we definitelyhave to surface these issues before
(18:23):
we can do anything about them.
I would love to think that thispodcast and other initiatives like
the Research Culture Enablers Networkhave helped to raise the profile of
the incredible contributions thatthese professionals make and why
they should be more highly valued.
I do know that Leeds is working ona career framework tool for research
professionals, and after we finishedrecording, Rika also told me about
(18:46):
moves to create a framework likethe Technician's Commitment, but
for other research professionals.
All of that is good news, but anothertheme more apparent than the informal
conversations I had over lunch and coffeewas concerned that it's easy to talk and
much harder to actually change things.
The uncertainty around the next REFand financial worries in the sector
might push a return to the narrativeof pressure, overwork and churning out
(19:10):
research regardless of the human cost.
As universities face at bestbelt-tightening and at worst redundancies
or even closure, it would be easyto knuckle down and focus on the
traditional research metrics, quietlyshelving research cultural initiatives
as things which are nice to have,but don't shift the bottom line.
But the truth is that workplaceculture is the bottom line.
(19:32):
People who are treated well do good work.
Research excellence isn't atodds with research culture.
Sustainable research excellenceis a direct result of
positive research culture.
So let's not throw thebaby out with bath water.
This isn't an either or situation.
The evidence is clear.
In the long term.
Positive research culture means happystaff, which leads to excellent research.
(19:57):
But as so many of my previous guests havesaid, change in big organizations like
universities can be frustratingly slow.
Let's hope it doesn'tactually grind to a halt.
And on that note, I will wrap upthis report from the International
Research Culture Conference.
Thank you so much to all the contributors.
If you want to get in touch with anyof them or find a bit more about the
(20:18):
initiatives that they've mentioned,you'll find links in the show notes.
If you like the sound of the event, theorganizers have announced that it will
be running again in 2026 with an onlineday on the 21st of September and an
in-person date on the 23rd of September.
And in terms of other events,I'm gonna be out and about soon
at the Festival of Hidden REF inBirmingham on the 8th of October.
And I'm hoping to produceanother event report episode.
(20:41):
So if you're gonna be there, pleasemake sure you come and say hello.
And you could even record a littlesnippet like Dolly, Rika and Alys did.
It still surprises me sometimesthat anyone actually listens to this
podcast, so I always love to meetyou out in the real world, although
I do have a terrible memory for namesand faces, so I do apologize if I
don't connect the dots straightaway.
(21:01):
With that, I will say goodbyefor now and look forward to
seeing you in the next episode.
Bye.
Thanks for listening to Research Adjacent.
If you're listening in a podcast app,please check your subscribed and then
use the links in the episode descriptionto find full show notes and to follow
the podcast on LinkedIn or Instagram.
You can also find all the links and otherepisodes at www.researchadjacent.com.
(21:26):
Research Adjacent is presentedand produced by Sarah McLusky,
and the theme music is byLemon Music Studios on Pixabay.
And you, yes you, get a big goldstar for listening right to the end.
See you next time.
A lot of the research culture challenges that we all face
are actually common to differentinstitutions, and they can't be solved
by one institution because it is thewhole system that needs to change.
Sarah McLusky (00:11):
But the point is, when you put those people together
working on the same project.
The differences are incredibly stark,and that is the issue, and that's
why it feels like it's not fair.
Alys Kay (00:26):
I started to think, what if we could make a game that would
actually make it safe to talk aboutsome of these difficult things.
To talk about roles, to talkabout assumptions, to surface
the hidden labor and hiddenwork that often go unrecognized.
Sarah McLusky (00:43):
Hello there.
I'm Sarah McLusky andthis is Research Adjacent.
Each episode I talk to amazing researchadjacent professionals about what
they do and why it makes a difference.
Keep listening to find out why wethink the research adjacent space
is where the real magic happens.
(01:04):
Hello and welcome to Research Adjacent.
I'm your host, Sarah McLusky,and today's episode is something
a little bit different.
It's a report from the InternationalResearch Culture Conference, which
was held at Warwick Universityon the 17th of September, 2025.
Warwick hosts the event as theuniversity is also home to the
National Center for Research Culture.
(01:24):
But before we get onto my report fromthe event, I just thought I would do
a quick aside on research culture foranyone who isn't familiar with the term
and why I see this podcast as fittingsquarely into the research culture box.
Like any workplace, universities andresearch organizations have their
own ways of working that have evolvedover time and for around a decade now.
(01:45):
There have been concerns raisedthat some of the ways, these
ways of working are a bit toxic.
The intense competition for funding,the publish or perish culture, that
can lead to bullying and precarity andthe celebration of star researchers,
while colleagues who did the bruntof the work are often overlooked.
Universities are under huge pressureto demonstrate excellence and that can
(02:05):
lead to dubious practices and burnout.
If you want an overview of thesechallenges, then the Wellcome report,
'What researchers think about the culturethey work in' provides a good summary, and
I'll put a link to that in the show notes.
This podcast is very much rooted inthat research culture conversation.
When that Wellcome report cameout, I was working for a Wellcome
funded research institute and Ididn't think it went far enough.
(02:27):
I thought there was too much talkabout researchers and not enough
about the experiences of the otherpeople who make up the research teams.
In other words, theresearch adjacent people.
Now I am a communicator, so Iturned to the channel that I had
available to try and raise theprofile and voice the experiences of
all the people impacted by researchculture, not just the researchers.
(02:50):
So anyway, here we are.
About five years ago, funders putsome money into trying to investigate
and change research culture, and thisconference is just one of the things
that has grown out of that investment.
This is the third year thatWarwick has hosted the event, but
it was my first time attending.
I went because I successfully pitcheda talk on professional development
for research adjacent staff, andthere'll be more about that later.
(03:13):
And it also gave me an opportunityto catch up with some other folks
who care about raising the profileof research adjacent staff.
Some of them who I have been LinkedInfriends with for a good while now.
One of those was Rika Nair, who isthe research culture manager at the
University of Warwick, and I asked her totell us a bit more about the conference
and what they hope it will achieve.
(03:35):
We're here at the InternationalResearch Culture Conference, IRCC 2025.
I wonder if you could tellus a bit about the event and
what is happening here today.
Rika Nair (03:46):
So this event has really stemmed from the fact that a lot of the
research culture challenges that we allface are actually common to different
institutions, and they can't be solvedby one institution because it is the
whole system that needs to change.
So what we're trying to do heretoday is to bring all the different
pieces of the puzzle together.
And I think one big aspect of changingresearch culture and convincing senior
(04:06):
leaders will be showing examples ofwhere there already is good practice.
In my mind, benchmarking isreally important for making
that argument and that evidencethat things can be different.
So that's what I'm hoping is gonnacome from this conference, as Kirsty
has said in her keynote, that we willessentially have things that people
can take away with them to their owninstitutions that we can point the
finger and say, this is working wellthere, why can't we do it here as well?
Sarah McLusky (04:29):
As you might expect, the day included a variety of
talks, workshops, and plenaries.
We started with a talk from StevenHill of Research England, and
a panel sharing perspectives onresearch culture around the globe.
Speakers from South Africa, Ireland,and Australia confirmed that the
challenges are similar elsewherewith big issues being precarity,
impact, EDI and collaboration.
(04:50):
After coffee, we went into breakoutsessions and that's where I had a
slot speaking as part of a panelon professional development.
As listeners to this podcast,I'm sure I don't need to tell
you that research adjacent staffoften inhabit a challenging space.
We often work alongside researchers onthe same research projects, sometimes with
more responsibility or influence than theresearchers, but for those on professional
(05:13):
services contract, the conditions ofemployment can be vastly different.
Opportunities for professional developmentare patchy, recognition is siloed, and
promotion usually isn't even an option.
Here's some extracts from mytalk, which was called Snakes and
Ladders, the reality of professionaldevelopment for research enablers.
(05:34):
Most people on professional servicescontract, you can't get promoted.
Generally it has to be thejob that gets regraded.
It can't be the person who gets promoted.
Then there is also the fact that if youdo want to move on, often it'll be you'll
have to go to another organization, goto another department, wait for your
(05:55):
manager to leave, and that's essentiallyoften the options that are available.
And from my own personalexperience, again and again, I
would go to look for training.
There would be training would come uparound things like public engagement
or science communication, and we weretold, no, that's for researchers only.
But what I think a lot of senior leadersin universities don't realize a lot
(06:19):
of people doing those jobs have neverbeen formally trained in those things.
It's excluding people who could actuallytake that and bring it to their job.
Then we come to recognition,and this again a real example.
From an organization I usedto work in, I'm not gonna name
names because it is common.
(06:40):
They sent round an announcementthat because of the success they'd
had that year, they announced thatseveral of the staff, several of the
academics were promoted to professor,associate professor, whatever it was.
The research manager who I knowand I know how hard they work,
got a 250 pound bonus, one off.
(07:00):
And that, because that isall that was available.
Now it's not, again, it's not thatthe managers there maybe didn't want
to give them more acknowledgement,but that is all that was available
within the institution to recognizehow hard that person had worked.
And it comes against this backcurrent of this narrative of
(07:20):
bullshit admin jobs in academia.
So again, undermining of the rolethat these people undermining the
work they do as often invisibleglue that holds things together.
So all of this just reinforces theidea that these roles are second class
citizens and that their contributiondoesn't count, isn't valuable.
(07:42):
What is happening at the moment isa deeply unfair two tier system.
Now, I'm not saying everything's perfectfor academics 'cause it's clearly not.
Also, a lot of the challenges that arefaced by professional staff are actually
really common in every other workspace.
So these are not thingsthat are unique to academia.
But the point is, when youput those people together
(08:03):
working on the same project.
The differences are incredibly stark,and that is the issue, and that's
why it feels like it's not fair.
It's particularly important to thinkabout this in the context that research
enablers are considerably more likelyto be female as well, so there's an
(08:24):
equality and diversity dimension to this.
It was refreshing that I wasn't theonly presenter or poster talking
about research adjacent professionals.
When I've been to conferences likethis in the past, I have been taken
aback at how even in a room of researchprofessional staff, the conversation
is often focused solely on researchers.
(08:45):
One session that also centered thecontributions of research adjacent
professionals was led by Alys Kay . Imissed it because it clashed with my talk,
but I caught up with Alys afterwards.
Alys Kay (08:56):
System Shuffle started as an idea 'cause I had the privilege
of interviewing 60 plus peopleall over the research ecosystem in
all different roles for a project.
And these were particularly diverse roles,lots of different levels of seniority,
different types of institutions.
And one of the things that really struckme when I was reflecting on that was how
(09:16):
many people feel powerless regardlessof where they are in the hierarchy.
Actually, people often feel quite isolatedand I think all of us, whatever role we
have often struggle to imagine what otherpeople's roles are, to see the system, to
think about the system as a whole thing.
And so I started to think, whatif we could make a game that would
(09:41):
actually make it safe to talk aboutsome of these difficult things.
To talk about roles, to talkabout assumptions, to surface
the hidden labor and hiddenwork that often go unrecognized.
So particularly in roles liketechnicians, research managers research,
software engineers, these are rolesthat actually keep the system going,
keep research going, but actually alot of their work is unrecognized.
(10:03):
So what System Shuffle actuallydoes, everyone sits down at a table.
They are randomly given a role.
They then have to inhabitthat role for the game.
Often that's quite an uncomfortablemoment, you turn over a role.
And you might stumble and be a bitconfused, but that's okay because the
game is actually about discussion.
It's not about winning or losing,it's all about opening up spaces for
(10:26):
curiosity and for fun and for safediscussion about difficult conversations.
I think a thing that often comes out, anobservable thing that people often comment
on is actually the recognition thatoften we hold hierarchies in our heads,
essentially, and we permission our ownbehaviors in whatever role we are, based
(10:48):
on stuff that we are maybe semi-consciousof or not totally conscious of.
And actually what the game does isit objectify that and surfaces that.
There's something about powers thatwe all have a legacy of assumptions.
And we all have rules that we abideby that are almost implicit and it
actually makes it explicit and thereforewe can think about what do we need to
(11:10):
do to enable recognition of differentpeople and diverse types of work.
Sarah McLusky (11:15):
It sounds fantastic.
It seems like we need to geteverybody out there playing the game.
Alys Kay (11:18):
So playing the game, which is created by the Research Culture Enablers
Network something that's really importantabout the game is it's co-created by many
diff different participants and voices.
And we're committed to other peoplebeing able to take the game and develop
it and remix it in any way that worksfor them in their environments as well.
So this autumn, the little group of peoplebehind the game, my co-conspirators, we
(11:43):
are putting together an online versionthat will be freely available to everyone.
And we're also working on making itdistributable so other people can use
it or actually create sets themselves.
Sarah McLusky (11:55):
Alys also sent me these reflections afterwards.
She said, 'one thing to emphasizeis that System Shuffle doesn't
end when the cards go down.
There's always a livelydiscussion afterwards, and it
isn't about who wins the game.
It's about what surfaces.
It generates critical thinking.
People start naming hidden hierarchies,questioning assumptions, and reflecting
on their own roles in a way thatthey rarely do in day-to-day work.
(12:17):
Every group produces a differentinsight because their lived experiences
are different, and that diversityof outcomes is what makes it
powerful.' The System Shuffle Game
was co-created by Alysand Rika, who you've
already heard, as well as Ellen Cole from Northumbria University,
Nicola Simcock from Newcastle, and AndrewMoss from Durham University, and as
somebody based up in the Northeast, I'mdelighted to hear that it is something
(12:40):
that has included a team from this region.
As you heard, System Shuffle is a newproject, but I look forward to seeing how
it develops, and from what Alys said, Ilove the way it gently pushes people to
see things from a different perspectiveand consider what might be possible
because it's that individual perspectiveshift that actually changes things.
(13:00):
Another thing that is constantlyevolving is exactly how we talk
about the people who contribute toresearch but aren't researchers.
As you well know by now, I callthem research adjacent, but you
might have also heard me talkingabout how I'm not actually
particularly attached to the term.
It was interesting to hear that Rikaand the Research Enablers Network
have been thinking about this too.
Rika Nair (13:22):
So the thinking behind the Research Culture Enablers Network
is that it's quite a new role.
research culture is quite a newtopic, or was at least two years ago.
But it continues to be an aspectthat institutions are exploring,
especially with the different messagingthat we're getting around REF.
And so we've had these new teams andthese new colleagues and I wanted to
create a community for them to share,for us to share really share challenges.
(13:45):
And also I've got the hypothesis thatmost people going into these roles have
experienced research and have opinionson how things can be done better.
And so by bringing them together, I'mhoping that we can develop solutions.
So we've got a LinkedIn group,so that's the Research Culture
Knowledge Exchange Group.
So it's probably a good place to startto see how the discussion has been
(14:05):
going and to contribute your ideas.
Sarah McLusky (14:07):
So one thing that, I find really interesting and that relates to
our podcast is the kind of language thatwe use to describe these sorts of roles.
So I use research adjacent.
You've said your community at the momentuses research enabler, but what are your
thoughts on the language that we use?
Rika Nair (14:24):
So definitely one of the areas where I think it conflicts with parity
of esteem is when we talk about theseadditional roles as being non-academic.
Or even supporting researchers when a lotof these research enabling roles actually
directly support the research itself.
We're all here for the research.
And so there's been a lot of discussionactually gravitating towards whether
(14:47):
the word enabler is the right one.
I don't see it as enabling with anynegative connotation, but enablers
being the opposite to blockers.
So for things to happen, you need theseenablers, but I can see where people might
think that term is not active enough.
And so I think a new umbrella term thatwe're hoping to share with the community
is research professional, which wethink would be an umbrella term for all
(15:09):
the contributions beyond technical andacademic that make research excellent.
Sarah McLusky (15:14):
If we settle on research professionals, I can live
with that, although I'm not gonnachange the podcast name anytime soon.
Another joy of being at the event wastelling people about the podcast, whether
they had never heard of it or were alreadyan avid listener, and it was a delight
to meet people who had heard the podcast,including Anna Sharman and Dolly Coates.
I asked Dolly what stuckwith her about the day.
Dolly Coates (15:38):
I'm Dolly and I work as a ref impact associate
for the University of Bristol'sFaculty of Science and Engineering.
And I guess a highlight of theday for me has been conversations
around the research iceberg, which Ithink was what Sarah phrased it as.
Really all the background workthat goes on beneath the surface to
make sure that research is reallyexcellent and how we can more formally
(16:00):
acknowledge that and promote it.
Through continued professionaldevelopment opportunities.
So yeah, that's beenreally interesting to hear.
Sarah McLusky (16:09):
If you want to know what Dolly means by the research iceberg,
I'll post a picture in the show notes.
It's a way of visualizing the fact thatwhat the outside world sees as research
is actually a huge collective effort,including a wide range of people whose
contributions are not normally recognized.
Basically, exactly whatthis podcast is all about.
Maybe I should rename itas the research iceberg.
(16:31):
Now let's stick with research adjacent.
This is getting too complicated.
So the day ended with a keynote from CatDavies, the outgoing Dean of Research
Culture at the University of Leeds.
Unfortunately, I had to leave beforethe end, but given everything I know
about what is going on at Leeds, andthat includes fabulous work, previous
guests, Ged Hall and Nick Sheppard, aswell as Ruth Winden, who has promised
(16:54):
me that she will be a guest eventuallyand the rest of the team behind the
Research Culture Uncovered Podcast.
When it comes to tackling some ofthe challenges around the recognition
and professional developmentfor research professionals,
Leeds are the ones to watch.
So I have no doubt that Cat has somereally valuable insights, and I'm hoping
that they will post a video of hertalk online so I can catch up later.
(17:15):
FYI Leeds are also settled on usingthe term research professionals,
so it sounds like that mightjust be the one that sticks.
We shall wait and see.
I wrote the first iteration of thispodcast episode on a cramped train
home from Birmingham to Newcastle, andone thing I was ruminating on was the
challenge of turning research into action.
(17:37):
In the conference it feltlike we're still talking about
problems without many solutions.
Research culture could easily becomeanother part of academic life where we
spend endless amounts of time analyzingand researching the problem without
actually doing anything about it.
As Cat intimated at the start of hertalk, research culture initiatives
have boomed over the last few yearsdue to UKRI and other funding.
(18:00):
But has anything actually changed?
Interestingly, this was the exactquestion that I was asked by Dan
King of Research Consulting Limited.
After my talk, he asked,are things getting better?
And I gave my honestanswer, which was yes.
I do think things are slowly gettingbetter for people in research
adjacent roles, and we definitelyhave to surface these issues before
(18:23):
we can do anything about them.
I would love to think that thispodcast and other initiatives like
the Research Culture Enablers Networkhave helped to raise the profile of
the incredible contributions thatthese professionals make and why
they should be more highly valued.
I do know that Leeds is working ona career framework tool for research
professionals, and after we finishedrecording, Rika also told me about
(18:46):
moves to create a framework likethe Technician's Commitment, but
for other research professionals.
All of that is good news, but anothertheme more apparent than the informal
conversations I had over lunch and coffeewas concerned that it's easy to talk and
much harder to actually change things.
The uncertainty around the next REFand financial worries in the sector
might push a return to the narrativeof pressure, overwork and churning out
(19:10):
research regardless of the human cost.
As universities face at bestbelt-tightening and at worst redundancies
or even closure, it would be easyto knuckle down and focus on the
traditional research metrics, quietlyshelving research cultural initiatives
as things which are nice to have,but don't shift the bottom line.
But the truth is that workplaceculture is the bottom line.
(19:32):
People who are treated well do good work.
Research excellence isn't atodds with research culture.
Sustainable research excellenceis a direct result of
positive research culture.
So let's not throw thebaby out with bath water.
This isn't an either or situation.
The evidence is clear.
In the long term.
Positive research culture means happystaff, which leads to excellent research.
(19:57):
But as so many of my previous guests havesaid, change in big organizations like
universities can be frustratingly slow.
Let's hope it doesn'tactually grind to a halt.
And on that note, I will wrap upthis report from the International
Research Culture Conference.
Thank you so much to all the contributors.
If you want to get in touch with anyof them or find a bit more about the
(20:18):
initiatives that they've mentioned,you'll find links in the show notes.
If you like the sound of the event, theorganizers have announced that it will
be running again in 2026 with an onlineday on the 21st of September and an
in-person date on the 23rd of September.
And in terms of other events,I'm gonna be out and about soon
at the Festival of Hidden REF inBirmingham on the 8th of October.
And I'm hoping to produceanother event report episode.
(20:41):
So if you're gonna be there, pleasemake sure you come and say hello.
And you could even record a littlesnippet like Dolly, Rika and Alys did.
It still surprises me sometimesthat anyone actually listens to this
podcast, so I always love to meetyou out in the real world, although
I do have a terrible memory for namesand faces, so I do apologize if I
don't connect the dots straightaway.
(21:01):
With that, I will say goodbyefor now and look forward to
seeing you in the next episode.
Bye.
Thanks for listening to Research Adjacent.
If you're listening in a podcast app,please check your subscribed and then
use the links in the episode descriptionto find full show notes and to follow
the podcast on LinkedIn or Instagram.
You can also find all the links and otherepisodes at www.researchadjacent.com.
(21:26):
Research Adjacent is presentedand produced by Sarah McLusky,
and the theme music is byLemon Music Studios on Pixabay.
And you, yes you, get a big goldstar for listening right to the end.
See you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.