Research competencies

Successful collaboration will depend on the leader of a team being able to assemble the necessary team core competence mix along with the related complementary competency and skill mix of the individual members (Poole, Egan, & Iqbal, 2009).

Over the last century the doctorate, first known in medieval Europe where it was a simply a licence to teach in universities, has established itself as a qualification recognised internationally, as the standard qualification for entry into the research and academic professions today, and as an important qualification for other labour markets (Park, 2005). It was first awarded in the United States by Yale College in 1861 (Coradsco, 1973, cited in Goodchild & Miller, 1997) and it wasn’t until 1917 that the degree was introduced in the UK.

The objective of a PhD is completion of a programme of research enabling candidates to make an original and significant contribution to scientific knowledge. There is considerable variation in the detailed requirements of disciplines, institutions and countries for the award, but there is a generally understood notion or understanding of what constitutes the “traditional” PhD (Philosophiae Doctor) (Huisman & Naidoo, 2006).

The development of general scientific ability depends on many interlinked factors – both cognitive and non-cognitive (Heller, 2007; Shavinina, 2004) and the outcome of a meta analysis study of the personality characteristics which might predict scientific and technical achievement, showed that the best predictors of scientific success related to biographical features, followed by subject-related ability and creativity tests, with general intelligence and creativity tests having the lowest prognostic value (Funke, Krauss, Schuler, & Staph, 1987 cited in Heller, 2007).

Many writers would suggest that scientists are different to non-scientists and the literature supports this view. A comprehensive review of the literature on the psychology of science and scientists by Feist and Gorman (1998) showed that scientists compared to non-scientists are:

 More conscientious and orderly;

 More dominant, driven, or achievement oriented;

 More independent and less sociable; and

 More emotionally stable or impulse controlled (G.J. Feist & Gorman,

The review went on to say that eminent and creative scientists compared to less eminent and less creative scientists are more:

 Dominant, arrogant, self-confident, or hostile;

 Autonomous, independent, or introverted;

 Driven, ambitious, or achievement oriented; and

 Open and flexible in thought and behaviour (Feist & Gorman, 1998, p. 26)

An earlier study by Greene (1976, cited in C Cohen & S Cohen, 2005), reported that the problems faced by scientists often stemmed from their communication and interpersonal difficulties and Feist (1994) who studied academic researchers (professor level and all male), concluded that “In sum, complex thinkers about research are influential in their discipline and are well cited, but are considered by observers to be neither warm nor sociable” (Feist, 1994, p.479). On a more positive note, C Cohen and S Cohen (2005) point out that studies have also found out that scientists were emotionally stable, impulse controlled, and open and flexible in thought and behaviour, and whilst their interpersonal skills can be less than optimum, they are willing to learn and improve and that they have the capacity and motivation to do so.

The outcome of a recent international study of scientists, musicians and politicians identified a number of features about scientists including that scientists from various different disciplines within the natural sciences share a uniform personality and a set of fundamental values, skills and attitudes that seem to be related to their professional activity; science favours the development of a sceptical attitude; and sociologists are the academics less similar to natural scientists and closest to business people (Jaffe, et al., 2010).

Cognitively, the successful scientist is characterised by having highly developed formal-logical thought processes; is able to think in the abstract, is creative, sensitive, and inventive, has lots of ideas, and original ways of approaching, restructuring and solving problems. The non-cognitive characteristics of the successful scientist are intellectual curiosity and

questioning, clear interests; motivation to achieve, goal orientation and persistence, and an ability to tolerate and exploit ambiguity, uncertainty and complexity (Heilbron, 1992). In addition the successful scientist has discipline knowledge and the set of research and collaborative skills (Heller, 2007).

Researcher training has been described as a socialisation process aimed at forming the identity and professional practices of future science workers as they are immersed in, and participate in the disciplinary culture and community of scientists (Bourdieu, 1975; Thune, 2010). According to many writers the skills and competencies of ”doing research”, can and should be learned throughout this socialisation process (Bromley, et al., 2007; Solmon, 2009; Willison & O'Regan, 2007). Despite the widely view that understanding and being able to apply research skills is regarded as a fundamental competency required of doctoral graduates, there are remarkably few courses on research competencies available (Huisman & Naidoo, 2006; Solmon, 2009; Willison & O'Regan, 2007). Collaborative research requires a further set of skills and competencies but very few researchers have ever had any formal training in collaborative research methods (Magyary, Whitney, & Brown, 2006; Poole, et al., 2009).

There is some confusion in the usage of words relating to competencies and core competencies. Competency has been defined as set of skills and know- how (expertise) resident in individuals, teams of individuals and strategic business units (Javidan, 1998; Ljungquist, 2007), and core competency is described by Pralahad and Hamel (1990) as the area of specialised skills, knowledge, technologies, and physical, managerial and value systems, cognitive strategy, meta-cognitions, beliefs, values and attitudes unique to an organisation which gives it a competitive advantage. Core competencies are regarded as the highest level competencies as they are the collective learning of a group, (described as social capital in section 2.6) and are of the greatest value to organisations, but are the most difficult to achieve and difficult to imitate (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). In research it is only recently that a clearly identified core of research competencies has been generally agreed as a minimum (Solmon, 2009).

Whilst there is some debate in the literature as to the value of competence

models they have been widely used in industry for some years. Through analysis

of behaviours it is possible to identify those which can be related to definitions of more effective and less effective performance and are then categorized under thematic headings which define the general competencies. Complicating an already complex area, in response to the demand for relevance and a research workforce capable of working in a variety of situations in a modern economy, the nature of the research degree is changing from one of achievement of a highly focused piece of scholarly research to a broader based training in research competence and transferable skills (Bromley, et al., 2007).

The increasing interest in identifying research competencies, has also extended to an interest in identifying the additional skills required for researchers to undertake collaborative research projects (see Boyatzis & Kolb, 1995; Coronini & Mangematin, 1999; Eisenhart & DeHaan, 2005; Kaslow, et al., 2004; RCUK, 2001). This trend is illustrated by publication by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC, 2001) of a framework of research competencies covering a range of discipline areas including:

1. General research skills and transferable skills;

2. Framework for research methods training; and

3. Subject and discipline guidelines.

The Research Council of the United Kingdom (RCUK) has also developed a

research competency framework of the 36 competencies which the Council

regards as essential for research (PhD) students graduating from UK universities

(RCUK, 2001)and as potential employer requirements (RCUK, 2009). Termed The

Joint Skills Statement (JSS), the 36 competencies fall into 7 domains as follows:

1. Research skills and techniques;

2. Participation in the research environment;

3. Research management;

5. Communication;

6. Networking and team working; and

7. Career management.

A further evolution of the Research Councils’ Joint Skills Statement (JSS) is The Researcher Development Statement (RCUK, 2010) (see Appendix D for details) which is now the key reference statement for the development of postgraduate researchers’ skills and attributes. The Framework sets out the knowledge, behaviours and attributes required to be a successful researcher and include a subset of collaboration skills, which it is claimed, is at the heart of the research model for the 21st Century. There are seven components to the set of collaboration skills:

1. Team Roles: the model used is the Belbin Team Role framework (see

Section 2.6 Teams).

2. Good working relationships and understanding colleagues,

3. Working styles; understanding the type of working style that one prefers (networker, results focused; task oriented; micro or big picture people person: ideas person,

4. Trust and respect,

5. Working with diversity,

6. Managing others, and

7. Managing oneself.

Two programmes which are aimed at increasing capability in collaboration are the IGERT programme in the United States and the Canadian CIHR programme. The IGERT programme (Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Programme) , which is supported by the National Science Foundation, is designed to “catalyze a cultural change in graduate education, for students, faculty, and institutions, by establishing innovative new models for graduate education and training in a fertile environment for collaborative research that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries”(NSF, 2011). In

British Columbia Canada, The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, Canada’s primary health research funding body), initiated a programme in 2003 aimed at fostering interdisciplinary health research and evidence-based health policies and practices emphasising the development of research competences and related skills needed for collaborative research. Experiential learning and identification of the core competencies are features of the programme (Poole, et al., 2009).

In addition to becoming skilled in the competencies for collaborative research, students are urged to become familiar with disciplines other than their own, and it is suggested that graduate students should be trained, inter alia, in diverse epistemological perspectives, and diverse methodological strategies, and an interdisciplinary research orientation (Eisenhart & DeHaan, 2005; Sung, et al., 2003)