Outputs & resources

This project aims to address a key challenge in research culture: the discoverability of expertise. Researchers are expected to stay aware of work across disciplines, spot potential applications of their research, and form collaborations — but the information landscape is fragmented, and hybrid working has reduced informal routes to connection.

We will develop an AI system that builds researcher profiles using publicly available data (e.g. Pure, Google Scholar, LinkedIn, blogs) and performs regular matchmaking exercises to suggest potential collaborators and relevant funding opportunities. The system will explain each match transparently and allow individuals to update or clarify their profile data. It is designed to be minimally intrusive — we will use email as the primary user interface, rather than asking users to join or manage a new platform or network.

Contacts: Özgür Akgün

Biomedical imaging physicists work across the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine (CMVM) and the College of Science and Engineering (CSE) on hardware, methods, simulation and clinical applications of physics in medicine and biology.  Collaboration with clinical colleagues is vital to ensure that this research addresses unmet clinical needs, but physics involvement in clinical projects is often at a late stage, with limited time and funding for methodological development or expert input.  This leaves physicists feeling like a technical service for clinicians rather than experts in the underlying techniques and models that they developed.

Career progression for physicists in CMVM is limited, and CSE physicists struggle to connect with clinicians for physics-driven projects. This lack of engagement and recognition of expertise leads to disenfranchisement amongst physicists in medicine and negatively impacts both research culture and research quality. We aim to bring together physicists and clinicians to demonstrate the value of true collaboration throughout the research project lifecycle and democratise research leadership.

Contact: Catriona Wimberley

Futures thinking is the capability to use anticipated and imagined futures deliberately: to explore horizons and question assumptions to inform present decisions. It is readily teachable but largely absent from current researcher training and development. 

The CoGIF project sought to fill this gap, and to adapt futures methods for practical use in research contexts. We explored how surrounding relational and institutional contexts affect futures thinking with recommendations for future practice in research cultures. 

Contacts: Sarah Kettley; Emily Shipp

We will implement and evaluate a pilot programme of reverse mentorship within the School of Health and Wellbeing (SHW) at the University of Glasgow with the aims of disrupting traditional hierarchies in research culture and building leadership skills. Reverse mentoring seeks to invert the traditional hierarchy of mentoring, placing senior staff as the mentee and junior colleagues in the mentor role. Despite potential benefits in delivering organisational change and building leadership capacity, reverse mentorship is uncommon in higher education and the impact on wider leadership culture has not been fully evaluated.

The evaluation will consider acceptability and feasibility of the approach in SHW, including any unintended effects (positive and negative) and scalability to the wider University ecosystem. If the pilot is successful, there may be scope for replication across the partner Universities. 

Contacts: Kirsten Hainey; Kirstin Mitchell

Research Organisations (RO’s) encourage good practice in data sharing to increase transparency of research. Data sharing is a policy requirement of many RO’s and funders and the use of data availability statements (DAS) is encouraged to enable links between related research outputs and research data. Despite encouragements and requirements, many researchers are still not sharing their data openly or accessibly. Data from the UK Reproducibility Network’s (UKRN) Open Research Indicators Pilot 4 (Data Availability Statements) indicates that only 40% of research papers include a DAS and of those, many are inadequate making it difficult for readers to find related datasets. Additionally, many institutions are not regularly quantifying open data practices, making targeted advocacy and tracking progress a challenge.

This project aims to understand and break down some of the perceived barriers to making data publicly available and to improve data findability by increasing the number of research outputs with a meaningful DAS. Building on the partners’ experience, the project will also develop guidance for institutions on how to internally monitor progress towards good open data practices.

Contacts: Federica Fina; Mary Donaldson; Kerry Miller; Valerie McCutcheon

Universities are complex organisations. Teams and individuals often struggle with entrenched hierarchies and a lack of innovation culture.  How do we create space and methods to work better together?  How do we enable a culture where anyone can show leadership and all voices are heard? How do we better listen and get unstuck when we reach impasse with others?

Collective leadership practices offer tools and processes that can be readily adopted, that offer tried and tested ways of engaging people with the questions and challenges they need to address.  The methods require the acquisition of skills and confidence to design and facilitate spaces that are appropriate, effective and safe. These methods are not widely known nor applied in the University sector, despite the value they offer.

This propject offers a practical approach to embedding and scaling facilitation skills and collective leadership methods through providing a strategy for adoption, training and tools across the three universities and beyond.

Contact: Claire Pembleton

Undefined research cultural expectations lead to a ‘hidden curriculum’ of unwritten rules, particularly disadvantaging first-generation academics, neurodivergent individuals, and interdisciplinary researchers.

Lab handbooks set out a research group’s culture by outlining roles, behaviours, and best practices in ways that support equitable access to information. By making local cultural expectations explicit, handbooks have the potential to disrupt the passing on of less positive research cultures both within and outwith a traditional lab context.

Lab handbook templates already exist, however implementation is low. Limited resources are available to support research groups to explore and engage with the benefits of lab handbooks, overcome implementation barriers, and ensure handbooks effectively improve local research culture.

Contacts: Emma Hall; Daniel Toddie-Moore; Jennifer Crawford 

How can one lead ethically from a position of academic precarity and professional uncertainty? While leadership is a core attribute encouraged at every level of academia, it is also highly context-dependent. Researcher development programmes at both universities offer leadership development opportunities and support, but existing resources do not identify or address the specific challenges of ethical leadership in situations of precarity.

This project investigated how academics in precarious positions (PAs) perceive ethical leadership in their contexts;  and using this information developed specific resources to support the development of leadership skills that promote ethical career progression and foster solidarity, empathy, collaboration, and fairness.  The insights and resources delivered by this project are embedded in the researcher development offer at the partner institutions.

Contacts: Enrico Galvagni; Jen Ross; Simon McGrath; Cecile Menard; Joanna Royle

Our project focused on a hidden aspect of Research Cultures and their improvement: first-generation staff and the intersection between academic work, careers and class.

This topic is a neglected element in EDI discussions. Yet, research indicates that educational and social  backgrounds fundamentally shape academic trajectories and expectations. From initial conversations, we learned how openly talking about experiences can raise insecurities and even shame, leading to concealment. How, then, do first-generation staff experiences intersect  with research culture, and what leadership is required to give them greater visibility and sense of belonging?

Contact: Niki Vermeulen

This project addresses the unique challenges faced by Women of Colour (WoC) PhD students and early-career researchers (ECRs) in academia in Scotland. It aims to foster equity and inclusion through critical analysis, storytelling and mentoring, and build networks and communities of care across departments and institutions. 

Focusing on the Scottish university context, the research explores barriers encountered by WoC PhD students and ECRs across research, teaching, fieldwork, writing, publishing and the navigation of imposter syndrome. It also assesses existing institutional support mechanisms at the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow to evaluate their effectiveness and identify critical gaps.

Contact: Sukanya Krishnamurthy

The way in which people socially interact with each other can either create a positive, collegial atmosphere or can create a situation in which some people feel marginalised or excluded. However, individuals are not always aware of how these day-to-day social interactions make others feel. Psychologists have defined two types of subtle interactions that can impact others: i) microaggressions, which include comments or behaviours that communicate prejudiced or derogatory views and attitudes (e.g., sexist jokes), and ii) microinclusions, which are small-scale actions that can create a sense of inclusion or belonging (e.g., use of correct pronouns). By definition, these types of interactions are subtle and can be ambiguous, which means that individuals might not be understand the negative impacts of their behaviour, or they might not appreciate how small actions can improve the experiences of others. In this project, we focus on microaggressions and microinclusions that are specifically related to gender, given that women and non-binary individuals experience numerous barriers to their research careers.

Contacts: Gillian Brown; Nicole Tausch; Csilla Pákozdy; Jinwen Xie

Games for Research and Interdisciplinary Dialogue (GRID) is an interdisciplinary research project that tackles challenges in collaborative research. GRID explores the challenges, techniques, and skills relevant to interdisciplinary research (IDR) and aims to bring these to research teams through a collaborative board game. Working with interdisciplinary researchers, students, technicians, and research support staff across the three universities, we will co-design a game that translates IDR challenges and solutions into practical, actionable game elements.

To gather diverse perspectives on the matter of IDR and to widen our reach and impact, GRID has partnered with Health Data Science UK (HDR UK) and UK Dementia Research Institute (UK DRI). The project is also part of the University of Edinburgh ‘Gamification and Systems Thinking Lab‘ and the University of Glasgow ‘Games and Gaming Lab‘, and is done in collaboration with the ‘Healthier Science through Collaboration’ (HxC) project.

Contacts: Inna Yaneva-Toraman; Rachel E.S. Porteous 

This project will develop strong doctoral networks, inspire and train doctoral leaders from four Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) doctoral networks jointly formed by two Scotland- wide Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTPs), i.e. the Scottish Graduate School of Social Science (SGSSS, https://www.sgsss.ac.uk/) and the Scottish Graduate School for Arts & Humanities (SGSAH, https://www.sgsah.ac.uk/#gsc.tab=0) to support underrepresented postgraduate researcher (PGR) groups (see https://www.sgsss.ac.uk/pgr-networks/). These cross-institutional EDI networks support PGRs from groups who traditionally do not pursue a PhD – those with disabilities, minority groups, part-time learners and those coming from a different academic context. Each network aims to develop thriving communities, empower members and nurture a positive environment while highlighting interdependence and collegiality in the doctoral journey.

Contacts: Dely L. Elliot, Anindya Raychaudhuri

This project focuses on the viva as the central element of PhD assessment, and seeks to establish ways in which it might not be inclusive and accessible. As the traditional entry- point into post-doctoral academic research, the influence of the viva on shaping our research cultures is significant and understudied. The viva is a unique examination tool – covering as it does the assessment of multiple years of work in a single session. 

• What kind of pressures might it introduce for candidates and examiners who face structural barriers – neurodiversity, chronic illness, or complex PTSD, to give just a few examples? 
• How are examiners currently nominated, and what are the equalities impact of this process? 
• What current policies exist for making reasonable adjustments to the viva, or for waiving it? 
• How many such applications do Universities receive, and how are they dealt with? 

Sector-wide diversity marker data for PGR non-continuation/failure rates are either absent or incomplete, so there isn’t a clear picture about the role of assessment on non-continuation rates, and, therefore, on any equalities impact of our methods of assessment. The project will collect qualitative data on this equalities impact and, based on this research, devise a set of recommendations for the consideration of the Postgraduate Research Committees of the three Universities. 

Contact: Anindya Raychaudhuri

The Improving Policy Leadership (IPoL) project worked with existing and aspiring policy leaders in College of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences (CAHSS) and the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at The University of Edinburgh to generate new insights into effective policy leadership. We aimed to improve support for those in such roles to enhance effectiveness, and ease the progression of new scholars into such roles by surfacing structural barriers to entry.  We will be working on plans to ensure a sustainable legacy for this initial project, with the aim to scale it appropriately across the wider University.

Contact: Ailsa Henderson; Shonagh McEwan

This project will help realise more inclusive and effective research cultures by developing evidence-based training for leaders and researchers based on the lived experiences of neurodivergent researchers, drawing from first-hand accounts across the universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews. Research organisations that don’t enable neurodivergent thinkers to thrive harm their own performance. Research and research culture are diminished by excluding such individuals, who contribute innovative thinking and unique problem-solving capabilities. This project will change what counts by providing ways for organisations to better harness a valuable talent pool, transforming institutional practice.

Contacts: Diane Gill; Claire Hobday; Michael Cowley 

Doing research is tough. Those entering research careers, particularly those doing emotionally demanding research (EDR) have described the culture within institutions as harmful. EDR includes working with people, information or settings that may adversely impact the researcher’s emotional wellbeing. EDR support is structurally absent from our institutions across the UK and in Scotland, provision varies. Policies without resource, one- off sessions, or an informed supervisor are not sufficient or sustainable.

EDR is disproportionately conducted by women, non-traditional academics and junior researchers with lived experience of the issue researched. This changes engagements with research from challenging but perhaps emotionally neutral, to personal, urgent, and where lack of support becomes internalised as individual failure. Indeed, the research produced is urgently needed often addressing the most challenging human experiences (end of/threat to life, violence). What support is available, is almost always provided by the same time-poor, resource-poor colleagues.

The lack of support and recognition leads to emotional, physical and mental exhaustion (burnout) triggering work performance issues and challenges outwith work.

This collaborative project builds from the existing groundwork of the Emotionally Demanding Research Network (EDRN).

Contacts: Julie Riddell; Jo Edson Ferrie; Seonaid Cleare 

This project offers a critical intervention in the conceptualisation, role and function of Knowledge Exchange and Impact (KEI), problematising an approach that uncritically instrumentalises ‘benefit’ from research outputs. KEI accounts for 25% of the overall score awarded to each REF submission, thereby contributing to a UK University’s national and international status.  Rapid changes to the research environment have had positive and negative consequences for KEI, prioritising and valuing socially useful research, but potentially reinforcing existing hierarchies and inequalities (e.g. researcher/recipient; Global North/Global South).  These mixed ‘impacts’ of KEI activities have not previously been systematically gathered or analysed through a decolonial lens. This project aims to address this gap by reviewing KEI work through decolonial approaches to structural hierarchies and epistemic inequities.

Contact: Hephzibah Israel

The project is seeking to better understand historic costing of technician time on research grants, industrial research grants and consultancy projects, with a view to developing a framework for ensuring this is done in a consistent, fair and transparent way. This will ensure both financial sustainability and that staff are recognised for their contributions.

With collaborators from organisational units across the University of Edinburgh, the project will also engage with funders and Worktribe to achieve clear definitions of terms and explore streamlining data reporting. Outputs from the project are scalable, with potential to benefit the HE sector through: 

• technicians gaining better recognition

• improved support for academics/researchers in costing projects

• more efficient reporting for research- enabling staff

Contact: Sally Morgan

This project is underpinned by Technician Commitment pillars of visibility, recognition, career development and sustainability for technical skills and is guided by our 3 institutions research culture and technician commitment action plans. We aim to clearly define the roles and contributions of RTPs who are technical specialists at Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews (UoE, UoG and UoStA) and highlight their need to be recognised as research leaders, ensuring they are held in parity of esteem with other experts in higher education. We will establish a network of core facility leads across UoE, UoG and UoStA to build working relationships with relevant stakeholders.

We wish to establish an RTP-led network in Scotland, beginning with a community of core facility leads between the University of Edinburgh, University of Glasgow and University of St Andrews to highlight expertise in research equipment investment, operation, research applications and equipment sharing. With this project we will explore the opportunities and barriers that exist in these institutes for the staff that lead core facilities involved in equipment investment and equipment sharing.

Contacts: Lee Murphy; Natalie Homer

Research misconduct persistently arises in research and institutional management of these breaches are critical to limit institutional and societal erosion of trust in research. Our collective Research Misconduct Investigation (RMI) policies have gone from strength to strength in ensuring a fair, transparent, time-aware process for all. While institutional policies have kept apace, there has been limited development in key areas involving the “human-facing” elements of the RMI process. 

Given the broad and career changing implications of the RMI process, the RESTORE team want to build an empathetic researcher-centric approach in our institutional policies. These ideas are underpinned in the “The Concordat to Support Research Integrity” which state that institutions should take all reasonable steps to protect the parties involved from undue pressure, or unwarranted negative consequences” and “consider the impact on researchers and specialists involved in a research project affected by research misconduct”. 

Contact: Thamarai Schneiders 

The Scottish Research Technicians’ Professional (SRTP) Academy was a cross-institutional initiative supporting research technical professionals across Scotland.It provided:

• Tailored career development opportunities
• Networking and peer learning
• Leadership development
• Institutional recognition and visibility

Contacts: Mohammad Ali Salik; Tabea Gerlach

This project is a collaboration between two PhD programmes to create space where students can discuss challenges faced during their research and develop ways to overcome those challenges. The programmes (Multimorbidity PhD Programme for Health Professionals and PhD with Integrated Study in Advanced Care – ACRC Academy) will achieve this by facilitating a workshop series that prioritises sharing resources, building networks, and tackling challenges. Following the workshop series, a write-up will summarise learnings to share with those interested in creating similar projects.

What makes this project unique is its grassroots approach: it is not only designed for students but also created by students and shaped by the PhD experience. The workshop will be places where students can talk about things they do not typically get a chance to raise within university-designed workshops.

Contacts: Jenn Yoo; Kieran Sweeney

Universities are establishing shared space and equipment to foster collaboration, reduce energy consumption and duplication of resources, and accommodate growing number of staff in a finite estate. This project will explore and shape what sharing means for research cultures and outcomes, focusing on collaboration between disciplines and with other sectors and publics.

We will investigate what sharing means to researchers and other parties sharing facilities with them:

• What are the benefits and drawbacks of sharing facilities from the perspective of those involved?

• What norms, values and forms of knowledge does sharing facilities enable or weaken; who and what is involved in making a success of these arrangements?

• What practical steps can be taken to derive further benefits to research cultures and outputs from shared research facilities?

Contacts: Anne Kerr; Betsy Barkas

Working in academia is stressful. There is a higher level of mental health issues amongst academics than the general population. One contributing factor is the competitive and perfectionist culture in which failure (e.g., to secure a grant, to publish) is common, but largely not talked about. Rejection and disappointment can lead to poor mental health, but in different conditions it may lead to growth through adversity. Resilience is commonly understood as effective adaptability to stress or adversity – the ability to ‘bounce back’. It originated as a concept in psychology, understood as a stable personality trait, but is now more commonly understood as a process or as the outcome of interaction between individual and context. Indeed, some argue that resilience is now best understood as a property of systems and communities rather than of individuals.

Little is known about what makes a research community resilient, and the ways in which collegial leadership can foster a resilient culture which supports researcher wellbeing in the context of professional failure. There is a consequent paucity of resources to support HE research leaders with this task. This project will contribute to filling these knowledge and practice gaps.

Contacts: Fiona O’Hanlon; Gale MacLeod

By challenging ableist and disablist university policies and practices, we envision that research cultures can be improved for everyone, not only for disabled and chronically ill researchers.

1. Exploring Disabled and Chronically Ill Researchers' Research: While acknowledging that there is not one research culture but many 'cultures', we assume these are made visible and encoded in university policies, procedures, and processes. Using qualitative multi- methods, such as analyzing documents and conducting online focus groups and interviews with disabled and chronically ill researchers at the University of Edinburgh, we aim to understand their impact and how marginalized groups conduct research within them.
2. Embedding Care in Research Cultures: By drawing on theoretical frameworks from feminist scholarship and disability justice literature around care.
3. Slow Scholarship and Fast Knowledge Production: In our web-of-care group, we challenge the 'cult of speed' in academic scholarship, which may cause stress and burnout; we will evaluate whether there are times when 'slow scholarship' benefits researchers and the knowledge produced.
4. Adopting a 'Universal Design' Approach: We advocate for universal design, defined as "designing all products and the built environment to be aesthetic and usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless of age, ability, or status in life" (What is Universal Design? – The UD Project).

Contact: Gill Haddow