Enhancing the Quality of Research in Europe: Theoretical Perspectives on and Guiding Principles for Researcher Development

Abstract

‘Europe does not perform particularly well in terms of truly outstanding research’ the European Commission Directorate General for Research observed in 2005. Ten years on, the same observation could justifiably be made, with expectations that the combined forces of the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area would prove a match for the research superpower status of the USA remaining largely unfulfilled. What, then, should Europe be doing to address this problem? What it has done is focus on doctoral education, perceiving it as the cornerstone upon which will be built Europe’s future world class research excellence. Yet this chapter argues that measures to improve European doctoral education do not go far enough; they barely scratch the surface of what needs to be addressed if ‘the new academic generation may be trained to become creative, critical and autonomous intellectual risk takers, pushing the boundaries of frontier research’. The chapter’s overarching message is that whilst structures and systems may support researchers during and after their doctoral programmes, these alone will not achieve high quality research and, by extension, high quality researchers. Doctoral training, it is argued, must incorporate consideration of how researcher development occurs, and the author’s original conceptual model of researcher development is presented as a basis of recommendations for developing policy and practice, not only for developing early career European researchers working for their doctorates and at post-doctoral level, but for developing all researchers working in Europe, and enhancing the quality of European research.

Keywords

Researcher professionalism European Research Area Professional development Research leadership Academic acculturation 

References

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2009). Research collaboration and productivity: Is there correlation? Higher Education, 57, 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AITSL, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian professional standards for principals. Canberra: Ministerial Council for Education.Google Scholar
  3. Åkerlind, G. (2008). Growing and developing as a university researcher. Higher Education, 55, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beňuš, Š. (2015). Academic identity in Slovakia: A personal comparative view. In L. Evans & J. Nixon (Eds.), Academic identities in higher education: The changing European landscape (pp. 99–114). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  5. Bitusikova, A. (2009). Reforming doctoral education in Europe. Academe, 95(1), 21–23.Google Scholar
  6. Byrne, J., Jørgensen, T., & Loukkola, T. (2013). Quality assurance in doctoral education—results of the ARDE project. Brussels: European University Association.Google Scholar
  7. Coleridge, S. T., Smith-Barbaro, P., & Knisley, C. (2004). A practical method for increasing scholarly activity in an academic family medicine department. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 16(2), 181–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deem, R., & Lucas, L. (2007). Research and teaching cultures in two contrasting UK policy contexts: Academic life in education departments in five English and Scottish universities. Higher Education, 54(1), 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DfES, Department for Education and Skills. (2004). National standards for headteachers: Guidance. London: DfES.Google Scholar
  10. Drnach, M. J. (2002). Designing an incentive plan for researchers. The Journal of Research Administration, 33(1), 13–17.Google Scholar
  11. Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission. (2007). Green paper: The European research area: New perspectives (text with EEA relevance). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission Directorate General for Research. (2005). Frontier research: The European challenge: High level expert group report executive summary. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission Directorate General for Research & Innovation. (2011). Principles for innovative doctoral training. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, L. (1997). A voice crying in the wilderness? The problems and constraints facing “extended” professionals in the English primary education sector. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 3(1), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans, L. (1998). Teacher morale, job satisfaction and motivation. London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  17. Evans, L. (2009). Developing research capacity in the social sciences: A professionality-based model. International Journal for Researcher Development, 1(2), 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, L. (2010). Developing the European researcher: “Extended” professionality within the Bologna process. Professional Development in Education, 36(4), 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans, L. (2011a). The scholarship of researcher development: Mapping the terrain and pushing back boundaries. International Journal for Researcher Development, 2(2), 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans, L. (2011b). The “shape” of teacher professionalism in England: Professional standards, performance management, pro-fessional development, and the changes proposed in the 2010 White Paper. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 851–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evans, L. (2012). Leadership for researcher development: What research leaders need to know and understand. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 40(4), 432–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Evans, L. (2013). The professional status of educational research: Professionalism and developmentalism in 21st century work-ing life. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(4), 471–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Evans, L. (2014a). What is effective research leadership? A research-informed perspective. Higher Education Research and Development, 33(1), 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Evans, L. (2014b). Leadership for professional development and learning: Enhancing our understanding of how teachers develop. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(2), 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans, L., Homer, M., & Rayner, S. (2013). Professors as academic leaders: The perspectives of ‘the led’. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 41(5), 674–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implications for institutional policy and decision making. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 26–48.Google Scholar
  27. Fox, M. F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fox, M. F., & Mohapatra, S. (2007). Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(5), 542–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gordon, G. (2005). The human dimensions of the research agenda: Supporting the development of researchers throughout the career life cycle. Higher Education Quarterly, 59(1), 40–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hemming, B. C., Rushbrook, P., & Smith, E. (2007). Academics’ views on publishing refereed works: A content analysis. Higher Education, 54, 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoyle, E. (1975). Professionality, professionalism and control in teaching. In V. Houghton, et al. (Eds.), Management in education: The management of organisations and individuals (pp. 314–320). London: Ward Lock Educational in association with Open University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Krasniewski, A. (2008). Transformation of doctoral training in Poland. Higher Education in Europe, 33(1), 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Macfarlane, B. (2012). Intellectual leadership in higher education: Renewing the role of the university professor. Abingdon: Routledge/SRHE.Google Scholar
  34. Manathunga, C., Lant, P., & Mellick, G. (2007). Developing professional researchers: Research students’ graduate attributes. Studies in Continuing Education, 29(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGrail, M. R., Rickard, C. M., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McIntyre, D., & McIntyre, A. (1999). ESRC teaching and learning programme: Capacity for research into teaching and learning—final report.Google Scholar
  37. Nicolin, A., & Buzatu, F. (2015). The Romanian PhD students at CERN: The Bologna process and beyond.Google Scholar
  38. Rath, J. (2009). A report of a New Zealand-based funding initiative designed to improve a university’s research culture. The Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 90–100.Google Scholar
  39. Rees, G., Baron, S., Boyask, R., & Taylor, C. (2007). Research-capacity building: Professional learning and the social practices of educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 33(5), 761–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robertson, S. (2008). The Bologna process goes global: A model, market, mobility, brain power or state-building strategy? In An invitational paper to ANPED’s Annual Conference. Caxambu, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.Google Scholar
  41. Scottish Executive. (2005). Ambitious, excellent schools: Standard for headship—November 2005. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.Google Scholar
  42. Tight, M. (2008). Higher education research as tribe, territory and/or community: A co-citation analysis. Higher Education, 55, 593–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vekkaila, J., Pyhälto, K., Hakkarainen, K., Keskinen, J., & Lonka, K. (2012). Doctoral students’ key learning experiences in the natural sciences. International Journal for Researcher Development, 3(2), 154–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Welsh Government. (2011). Revised professional standards for education practitioners in Wales: Guidance. Cardiff: Welsh Government, Llywodraeth Cymru.Google Scholar
  45. Wimsatt, L., Trice, A., & Langley, D. (2009). Faculty perspectives on academic work and administrative burden: Implications for the design of effective support services. The Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 71–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations