The University of Leeds
RESEARCH BOARD
A Draft Framework for Research Leadership
The purpose of this document is to provide a draft framework for internationally recognised research leaders.
The framework consists of the following elements: attributes of international research leaders; activity
indicators for internationally recognised research leaders; metrics; managing a continuous cycle of research.
1
Introduction
A University priority is to increase the proportion of academic staff engaged in internationally-excellent
research to 40% by 2005/06. Eady et al (2002)1 reported on the findings of an internal study of internationally
recognised research leaders at the University of Leeds. The aim of this study was to investigate ways in which
the University might support the development of internationally recognised research leaders.
Subsequent to the study Professor Richard Williams (SPEME) developed a draft set of activity indicators which
allow a researcher to demonstrate their standing in the research community. December 2001 saw the publication
of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise results. Evidence (2002)2 produced a report on the grade profiles of
Leeds Units of Assessment and peer benchmarks. In May 2003 the Roberts Report3 on the joint consultation on
the review of research assessment was published. Broadly, that report does not change the requirement for
academics to demonstrate their research excellence through their research outputs.
The activity indicators and the results or the benchmarking exercise along with the findings of Eady et al are
used as the basis for the framework for research leadership described by this document.
2 Attributes of international research leaders
The following set of attributes for an internationally excellent research leader has been identified from the
internal Leeds study (Eady et al 2002). Note that the attributes are based on a range of disciplines across the
University. There will be differences of emphasis between disciplines. In particular the study identified that the
nature of high quality published output - output that gets noticed - differs between disciplines. Attributes for an
internationally excellent research leader:
 Influence on international research agenda through sustained quality (and volume) of published output
 Shape development of the subject; champion the discipline
 Influence on the international research agenda through networking and involvement in high level activities
 Peer recognition (prizes, awards)
 Have developed [research] groups of substance over a prolonged period of time
 Continuously evolving research strategy
 Ability to attract and develop good quality research students and staff
 Ability to make or buy time to do research, eg through obtaining prestigious fellowships
 Maintaining research income
 Producing quality outputs on time
 Setting very high standards; drive and determination; never resting on laurels
 Risk taking.
Attributes identified by research leaders when recruiting academic and research staff (the research leaders of
tomorrow) included:




Excellence in research
Ability to spot and seize opportunities
Infectious enthusiasm, sparkle
Ability to manage people




Capacity for strategic thinking, vision
Initiative, energy, desire to succeed, commitment
Project management skills
Ability to work in team
1
Eady,A., Hatton, P. and Double, M., Development of International Research Leaders Findings of an internal study,
Research Board Paper (RB/01/58), University of Leeds, 30 April 2002.
2
Evidence, University of Leeds RAE2001 Research performance Grade profiles and peer benchmarks, 4 March 2002.
3
Roberts, G., RA Review: Review of research assessment, Report to the UK funding bodies, May 2003
1
Attributes identified as being necessary for research leadership included:




















Communication skills
Time management skills
Self management skills
Interpersonal skills
Managing research at departmental level
Love of the subject
Drive, determination, ambition, energy, tenacity
Vision, capacity for strategic thinking, ‘thinks
big’
Fearlessness, initiative
Single-mindedness, desire to be the best
Infectious enthusiasm
Individuality, maverick

Self-sufficiency


Anticipation





Self-motivation, pushes self
Conviction
Opportunism
Inspirational
Influential
Embraces publicity – visible
Delivers to ‘supreme best’
Concerned for the common good as well as own
success (self sacrificing)
Sustained influential publication record
Getting grants
Delivering [grant and other] outputs on time
Attending international meetings as an invited
speaker
Holder of, and achievements with, a prestigious
fellowship in some disciplines
Involvement with external activities
A contributing factor to these attributes is:
 Working in a research rich environment which provides:
o a supporting infrastructure,
o a critical community of researchers,
o an atmosphere in which research thrives (seminars, conferences etc).
3
Activity Indicators
The following table and introduction is based on a draft developed by Professor Richard Williams.
Activities that may be associated with research performance at international level are given in Table 1. In the
table the first column contains a set of activities that a researcher might (should?) be involved in. The role of an
individual researcher, within an activity, shown in the second column, relates to specific achievements and
performance in terms of research outputs and also measures of esteem. The relative significance, third column,
in terms of international recognition or performance of each role, is indicated as being high (H), medium (M) or
low (L). The fourth column quantifies the activity or output that an international researcher would be engaged
in. The whole numbers indicate the times in a year a role should be fulfilled. Where the output figure is less than
one this means such an activity might be expected to occur occasionally. Thus, a figure of 0.2 would indicate
the role being fulfilled once every 5 years. For some activities it is inappropriate to put a target output (e.g. to be
editor in chief of an international journal since the opportunities for such a post are few).
It is noted that some of these attributes and their significance may differ according to the discipline. Hence such
a template will need to be tailored to suit a specific discipline, especially when setting quantitative targets.
It should be noted that this is a draft. The activities and roles listed may vary across disciplines. The targets set
for each role are biased towards engineering disciplines. Wider consultation is needed.
2
Activity
Role
Indicative
level of
significance
(H, M, L)
International
Conference
Chairperson
Invited plenary speaker
Invited keynote speaker
Organising committee membership
Technical committee membership
Reviewing panel member
Session chair
Paper presentation (lecture)
Organiser
Organising committee
Participant
Journal editor (editor-in-chief)
Book author (single)
Book series editor (on-going)
Book co-author
Editorial board member (international journal)
Book chapter contributor (chapter)
Publications in an international journal
Publications in refereed international conference. proceedings
Acting as an external Visiting Professor (> 5days/yr)
Acting as a Visiting Researcher (> 5 days/yr)
External research collaborations with other universities (especially
overseas)
Consultant to international or national organisation (paid)
Organising & hosting Visiting Professors to Leeds
Research collaborations with industry or other external parties
(formal agreement in place)
President of Institute/Society
Chair of other significant group of an institute/soc
Member of international Advisory body (NATO, EC, UN)
Advisor to international. body (NSF, ARC, etc)
Advisor to national body (EPSRC, NERC, MRC, DTI etc)
Member of UK refereeing and assessment panel/college
Professional honour related to research: FREng, FRS, OBE, CBE etc
Recipient of research medal/awards
Recipient of national professional award
Recipient of national prize (for paper/talk)
TV series/documentary
National TV appearance
Local TV/radio
Take-up of research (e.g. by research citations, relative to peers)
Fully granted patent
Licences for software, technology, copyright etc in place
Spin-out companies (measured by capitalisation, employment
created, turnover, extent of global activity)
Societal impact (new methodologies, recognition etc – this may be
covered via other categories above/below)
Output of exceptionally trained researchers who are appointed to
significant positions on first employment or later (professor, leaders
etc)
Web page hits by external (non-Leeds) viewers
H
H
H
M
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
H
H
M
L
L
National
Conference or
workshop
Authorship
and Editing
External
Collaborations
Professional
Committees
etc
Awards &
Achievements
Esteem &
impact
M
L
H
H
H
Target for
rating as
Internationally
Excellent
(output/year)
0.2
1
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
1
1
3
0.1
0.1
2
0.2
4
1
1
1
2
M
M
L
1
3
H
H
H
H
L
L
H
H
M
M
H
L
L
1
1
0.3
0.2
1
0.2
0.2
-
-
Table 1. Roles and their significance in providing evidence of an individual’s international research excellence.
3
4
Key Activity Metrics
The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) currently brings the use of measures in evaluating research
quality to the fore. The key indicators used by the 2001 RAE assessment panels were:



Research outputs, such as refereed journal publications and monographs. Note, there is a large range of
outputs considered by the various assessment panels from the 2001 RAE. Other examples include
musical compositions and patents.
Number of PhDs awarded, these can be considered as outputs resulting from the supervision of students
some of whom are supported through studentships.
Research expenditure.
In addition the RAE asks Units of Assessment to submit evidence of esteem. The roles included in Table 1
are typical of activities carrying such esteem.
The following considers these key RAE indicators in more detail.
In the 2001 RAE institutions were asked to identify up to 4 items of research output for each member of staff
included in the return. An inference of this is that the best researchers, internationally excellent research
leaders, will have published (at least) 4 refereed journal papers in an assessment period. There have been 4
RAEs, in 1989, 1992, 1996 and 2001, an average of an assessment every 4 years. Thus, the inference can be
extended to internationally excellent research leaders publishing a minimum of one refereed journal paper
per year. Table 1 suggests that the target should be four.
Roberts (2003) in his review of the RAE viewed this as “an example of unnecessary standardisation. The
amount of work represented by a typical research output varies enormously between disciplines.” Roberts
(2003) also noted that “in many disciplines the four publications came to be seen not as a maximum but as a
norm. One of the most remarkable features of the RAE process is the extent to which it is still believed that
‘four publications’ is a minimum rather than a maximum for each research active member of staff submitted
to the RAE.”
Whilst not included in Table 1 the RAE asks for details of the number of PhDs awarded by a Unit of
Assessment. Table 2 gives data on the average number of doctoral degrees awarded per year per member of
staff submitted for the 2001 RAE.
Part of University
University as a whole
Food Science
Electrical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Transport Studies
English
Italian
Unit of
Assessment
16
29
30
34
50
53
Number of
staff
returned
11174
7
13.4
23.5
19.8
45
4
Research income
per returned
member of staff
per year
£64k5
£74k (£73k)
£111k (£97k)
£86k (£79k)
£67k (£44k)
£1.5k (£2.7k)
£2.1k (£1.8k)
Doctoral awards
per returned
member of staff
per year
~0.36
0.77 (0.77)
1.01 (0.54)
0.71 (0.49)
0.27 (0.2)
0.28 (0.35)
0.00 (0.15)
Table 2. Research measures from the University of Leeds as a whole and 5* rated units of assessment from the
University. Figures in brackets are the average for all the 5* rated schools in a particular unit of assessment.
4
In the 2001 RAE the University returned 1117 staff members
[http://www.leeds.ac.uk/about/annual_report/research.htm].
In 2001/01 the University’s annual research income was £71m and £72m of new research contracts were gained
within the same year. [http://www.leeds.ac.uk/about/facts_and_figures.htm].
5
6
The figure given is based on there being 1313 full-time and 500 part-time postgraduate research students registered at
the University in 2001/02. It assumes: 2 part-time postgraduate research students are 1 full-time-equivalent (FTE); a
doctoral award rate of 75%; an average time to submission of 3.5 years.
4
RAE returns are also required to contain information about research income which funds the production of
research output. Table 2 gives data on the average amount of research income won per year per member of
staff submitted for the 2001 RAE.
The figures in Table 2 relating to a particular unit of assessment are taken from the Evidence report on
RAE2001 research performance: grade profiles and peer benchmarks (2002). The overall Leeds figures are
based
on
the
University
of
Leeds
2001/02
Annual
report
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/about/annual_report/research.htm The above figures have been chosen as they relate
to Units of Assessment in which the research quality equates to attainable levels of international excellence
in more than half of the research activity submitted and attainable levels of national excellence in the
remainder. Thus these figures might be seen as a minimum target for a research leader in each of the
disciplines listed.
In broad terms, a research leader in an engineering discipline would expect to publish one refereed journal
paper per year, win £100k of research income and have one supervised research student complete a doctorate
each year. For a research leader in a language discipline the expectation would be one publication per year,
winning of £2k of research income and having one supervised research student complete a doctorate every 4
years.
5
A Continuous Cycle of Research
The activity indicators and RAE indicators included above focus on the outputs of research. However, many
of the attributes of a research leader relate to the processes associated with academic research. These include:

The development of a research strategy. This requires an understanding of and alignment with the
research environment within which a researcher works. This might be achieved through networking,
working with and as a user of research output, as well as through familiarity with peer researchers and
their research groups.

The running of a portfolio of research projects. This requires the recruitment, development, management
and leadership of a research team.
6
Summary
A research leader can be characterised as having a continuously developing research strategy that identifies
research issues and themes of relevance to the research environment within which they work. The strategy
provides context for defining research projects that address these research issues, which in turn form the
basis for grant applications and PhD research projects. A research leader will have developed a research team
to work on these projects. A research leader will be managing and leading this team7. Success in prosecuting
research will be shown by a record of publication8 and research income. In addition recognition of being an
authority in a field will be shown through being an invited speaker at conferences, being a member of an
editorial board and other measures of esteem.
JEB
26 September 2003
Version 0.5
© University of Leeds
7
It should be noted that in some disciplines the team may be large, consisting of 10s of people. In others it may be
small, say an academic and a research student.
It is assumed that the completion of PhDs by supervised research students is reflected in a researcher’s publication
record.
8
5