I’ve got an idea for a professional development programme for research development managers, and I’m interested to see if there’s (a) the appetite; and (b) the funding to make it work.
I’m a qualified coach, and I’ve experience with individual coaching, but also group coaching. I’ve also got around nineteen years of experience in research development, and I’m wondering about putting those things together and offering short programmes of group coaching for research development staff.
What would that look like in practice? Well, I’m still working on that, but roughly….
A group of three or (ideally) four research development professionals with at least some experience (let’s say a year or so), plus me as the facilitator. Each session would involve two or more members of the group presenting a problem, issue, or challenge that they’re currently facing. The rest of the group (including me) would then ask questions to make sure that we’ve understood the issue. We’d then support the presenter in finding their own answer, or their own way forward. While direct advice (“at my institution, we do X”) isn’t forbidden, the focus would be more on helping each person solve their own problem rather than giving advice.
Over a programme of sessions (probably 4-6), each member of the group would have the opportunity to bring forward issues or challenges to discuss on an equitable basis. We’d also talk through potential issues or challenges that people bring to see whether we can usefully combine any of them and address them together. We’d also revisit questions we’d discussed previously, to find out about progress/results and hold each other accountable for steps we said we’d take.
Sessions would be run under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information they receive, but not to identify the other people/institutions involved. At the end of the agreed number of sessions, group members are free to continue to keep meeting, but without direct facilitation (and therefore no additional cost).
Why I think it might be a good idea
There’s not a great deal of professional development opportunities for Research Development staff (though see below). RDNs at smaller and/or less research intensive institutions are often relatively isolated without access to a broader community of practice. And even in larger/research intensive institutions, there are often small teams or individuals who don’t have a great deal of contact with peers.
My experience at multiple ARMA conferences and other RDM networking events over the years has been that people in similar roles at different institutions tend to bond quickly over their shared experiences and issues/challenges. Perhaps counterintuitively, it’s easier to talk about challenges with people from other institutions than those at your own. Whether that’s because people don’t want to admit weakness in front of colleagues, or because colleagues will know too much about the politics and personalities involved, or whether there’s something of a seal of the confessional about talking to someone you don’t know… it just seems to work well.
I could, of course, offer a programme for research development staff from a single institution on a bespoke basis. This could be very valuable, provided that participants feel able to openly share their issues of challenge and ask constructive, challenging questions of each other. I’d be happy to discuss this. But I think external perspectives are useful, and for the default model I’d be looking for a mix of institutions.
Essentially, the offering is support for an individual RDM in finding ways forwards with the challenges they face in their work. That support is from me (as an experienced RDM and coach) and from peers at other institutions who may have different ways of working. They’ll also learn from helping others, and potentially gain access to an ongoing network of mutual support and assistance.
Why it might not be a good idea
(1) There’s already some training in this area.
The Association of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA) offers Supporting Research Proposals and Raising the Quality of Research Proposals. The former is for new Research Development Managers, and while the second is aimed at those with at least two years experience, it’s still fairly bread and butter. I led on the development of an ‘advanced’ course – Building Relationships, Increasing our Influence – which is due to run for a third time this year. This focuses less on the fundamental skills, and more on our ability to be persuasive and influential. It’s not enough to be right about something – what matters is taking others with you. ARMA also offers a mentoring programme.
But ARMA courses only run once or twice a year, and I think there might be scope for something more flexible, more individually tailored, that provides the opportunity to address particular issues or challenges. Cross institutional mentoring programmes can be a bit hit-and-miss, and often depend on the relative time commitments of both parties. They’re also quite long term, which can be an advantage and a disadvantage. In contrast, this would be (initially) relatively short term and focused, with a clear purpose and beginning and end.
I think group coaching offers something unique. Both in terms of supporting participants to develop their own solutions to their particular challenges, and in terms of developing expertise in supporting others to do the same. There’s a huge crossover between Research Development and Coaching, and even those research developers with no desire to obtain a coaching qualification can benefit from coaching skills.
(2) Everybody’s institution is stony broke, and the training budget is the first to go when it comes to cost savings.
Yeah. Mine too. And this is the big worry. Actually, I think a time limited programme of group coaching conducted over Teams could be pretty economical, given costs are split between three or four participants. There aren’t many overheads – no travel, no accommodation, no subsistence… it’s mainly time.
Also… we would only need three or four people (from different institutions) in order to run this. A lot of other training offerings (especially in-person, whole day events) need substantially more to be financially and pedagogically viable. So we wouldn’t need much… I can run one programme and then operate a waiting list until there are enough people for a second one.
So… yeah. Is this a good idea? Would you/ a colleague like to participate in something like this? And just as importantly, is there a budget to pay for it? Or might there be in the future? Please email me (in strict confidence) at [email protected]