Many established researchers make important contributions that extend far beyond publications, grants and formal leadership roles. They mentor colleagues, shape ideas, influence practice, support institutions, build relationships, contribute to disciplinary communities and help others thrive. Yet these forms of contribution can sometimes feel difficult to recognise, articulate or value, particularly when academic success is defined narrowly. This discussion guide explores how we recognise the many ways researchers contribute throughout their careers, how our roles evolve over time, and how we can communicate our value and influence more effectively. It is not about self-promotion. Rather, it is about developing a richer understanding of the contribution you make and ensuring that important work does not remain invisible. You may also wish to look at the peer discussion guides for the ‘Boundary Spanner’ persona, which which explore recognition, visibility and influence in relation to externally-facing work, stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange activities. This guide is designed for peer-facilitated discussion. There is no expert facilitator in the room. Everyone participates as an equal, taking shared responsibility for holding the structure, time, and quality of the conversation. Our Peer Discussion Guides Find out more about our Peer Discussion Guides and how you can use them …
Peer Discussion Guide: Protecting time for scholarship and writing
Many established researchers find that, as their careers progress, the activities that originally drew them into academia can become increasingly squeezed by leadership responsibilities, administration, teaching, meetings and service commitments. Yet reading, thinking, writing, developing ideas and making intellectual connections often remain some of the most meaningful and rewarding aspects of academic life. This discussion guide explores how we create the conditions for sustained scholarship. It is not about becoming busier or more efficient. Instead, it invites you to reflect on how you can protect space for deep thinking, meaningful writing and intellectual contribution, and reconnect with the aspects of academic work that matter most to you. You may also wish to look at the peer discussion guides for the ‘Juggler’ persona, which address related topics including managing competing demands and priorities, protecting time for important work, and maintaining focus and wellbeing in complex academic roles. This guide is designed for peer-facilitated discussion. There is no expert facilitator in the room. Everyone participates as an equal, taking shared responsibility for holding the structure, time, and quality of the conversation. Our Peer Discussion Guides Find out more about our Peer Discussion Guides and how you can use them to help you …
Stay Productive with Your Writing (Even When You’re Not “In the Mood”)
The Problem You block out time to write. By the end of the session: If you identify with this, then read on. This is a process problem, not a discipline or time management problem. Many researchers become frustrated because they judge their productivity solely by the amount of text they produce. In reality, progress often happens long before words appear on the page. The Shift: Stop Trying to Do or Be Everything at Once Writing is not one activity. It is a collection of different activities that require different intentions, mindsets, and ways of thinking. When we try to do them all simultaneously, they clash: We cannot do both at the same time. If we try, it creates friction, slows progress, and often leads to avoidance and lack of motivation. A useful way to remain productive, whatever mood you are in, is to separate the writing process into distinct stages and tackle them at different times of day, on different days, or even in different locations. One helpful framework is the POWER writing process outlined below. Throughout this explanation, we include some light-touch suggestions about how AI tools can support different stages of the writing process. These tools can help you …
Influencing effectively within higher education
A specific section of the Future Leaders Fellows Development Network’s Influencing Toolkit explores how influence operates within higher education and provides practical advice on influencing upwards, building credibility, understanding institutional priorities and communicating effectively with decision-makers. Many researchers assume that good ideas, strong evidence or valuable contributions will naturally be recognised. However, universities are complex organisations with multiple stakeholders, competing priorities and formal and informal decision-making processes. As a result, influence often depends not only on the quality of an idea, but also on how it is communicated, who is involved, and how well it aligns with institutional goals and priorities. The toolkit introduces practical approaches to understanding influence within academic environments, including stakeholder analysis, influencing strategies, communication approaches and common challenges associated with influencing without formal authority. For researchers who identify with the Independent Scholar Persona, this resource may be particularly useful when seeking promotion, raising the profile of their work, securing support for new ideas, or ensuring that valuable but less visible contributions are recognised and understood. For those who identify with the Boundary Spanner persona, it offers practical approaches to influencing across organisational and disciplinary boundaries, engaging stakeholders effectively, building partnerships and creating the conditions for research …
Creating space for scholarship: what writing retreats can teach us
Many established researchers, particularly those who identify with the ‘Independent Scholar’ persona, describe a common challenge: finding sufficient time and mental space for the activities that matter most to them. These two research studies explore the impact of academic writing retreats and the conditions that help academics engage in focused scholarly work. Together, they examine both the productivity benefits of writing retreats and their contribution to wellbeing, motivation and professional identity. While writing retreats are often associated with producing papers and grant applications, the research suggests that their value extends beyond outputs. Participants frequently report improved focus, renewed motivation, reduced feelings of isolation and a stronger connection to the aspects of academic work they find most meaningful. One of the key messages emerging from both studies is that the benefits arise not simply from writing more, but from creating conditions that are increasingly rare in academic life: uninterrupted time, clear focus, freedom from competing demands and opportunities to work alongside a supportive scholarly community. For ‘Independent Scholars’, these articles offers an opportunity to reflect on how much protected space currently exists for reading, writing, thinking and developing ideas, and what can be learned from retreat environments about creating more sustainable …
Recognising and valuing invisible contributions
This thought-provoking article Invisible Labour: Visible Activism (Montano, Toral & Percy) explores the concept of “invisible labour”: the often unseen work that supports students, colleagues, departments and institutions but may not always be formally recognised or rewarded. Examples might include mentoring, pastoral support, committee work, relationship-building, emotional labour, inclusion activities, helping colleagues navigate challenges or quietly ensuring that projects and teams continue to function effectively. While the article focuses particularly on the experiences of women in higher education, many of the themes will resonate more broadly across academia. Rather than offering practical solutions, the article provides a lens through which to think about contribution, recognition and value. It encourages readers to consider which activities are visible and rewarded, which remain largely unnoticed, and how this shapes both academic careers and institutional culture. For established researchers who identify with the ‘Independent Scholar’ persona, whose influence is often expressed through supporting others, intellectual leadership, collaboration and service, the article offers an opportunity to reflect on the breadth of their contribution and the many ways academic impact extends beyond publications and grants. Many academics instinctively focus on the outputs they produce while overlooking the support, leadership and care they provide to others. This …
Finding flow in your work
In this TED Talk Flow: The Secret to Happiness, professor of psychology and management Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi introduces the concept of “flow”: a state of deep concentration and immersion in an activity that is both challenging and meaningful. Many academics can recall moments when they became completely absorbed in reading, writing, analysing data, developing ideas or exploring complex problems. Yet as careers progress, these experiences can become harder to access due to competing demands, increasing responsibilities and fragmented working patterns. The talk explores the conditions that make flow more likely and explains why these experiences contribute to motivation, creativity, learning and wellbeing. It provides a useful perspective on why some activities leave us feeling energised and fulfilled while others can feel draining, even when they are important. For established researcher who find their attention and time pulled in different directions, this resource offers a reminder that activities such as thinking, writing, reading and intellectual exploration are not simply outputs to be measured, but an important part of what makes academic work meaningful and rewarding. Understanding what creates flow for you can help you make more intentional choices about how you spend your time and energy. As academic careers progress, it can …
Redefining academic success and recognising contribution
This article from the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) challenges traditional definitions of academic success and argues that universities should recognise a broader range of contributions beyond publications and research income alone. Many established researchers make significant contributions through mentoring, leadership, knowledge exchange, interdisciplinary collaboration, public engagement, institutional service and supporting the development of others. However, these contributions can sometimes feel less visible than more traditional academic metrics. The article encourages readers to think critically about how success is defined and rewarded within higher education and to reflect on the many different ways academics contribute to their institutions, disciplines and wider society. For some established researchers, particularly in SHAPE disciplines, this resource may be particularly valuable because their contribution is often expressed through intellectual influence, mentoring, relationship-building and leadership rather than through managing large research groups or pursuing highly visible leadership positions. It offers a useful reminder that there is no single model of a successful academic career. Many academics spend years measuring themselves against a version of success that was designed for someone else’s career. Rather than asking “Am I succeeding?”, consider asking: “What contribution am I trying to make, and how well does my current work support that …
Protect time for deep work and scholarship
The short article Academic Deep Work Gets You Promoted from Academic Headspace explores the concept of “deep work”, drawing on the ideas of Cal Newport and applying them directly to academic careers. As academic careers progress, it can become increasingly difficult to find uninterrupted time for activities such as reading, writing, analysing, developing ideas and making intellectual connections. Meetings, administration, leadership responsibilities, teaching and email can fragment attention and make it harder to focus on the work that often contributes most to long-term academic impact. You may notice that many activities which are highly valued in academia require long periods of uninterrupted attention yet are often the first things squeezed out of busy schedules. The article argues that sustained periods of focused intellectual effort are not a luxury but a key contributor to scholarly productivity and career progression. It distinguishes between “deep work” and more reactive or administrative activities, and encourages academics to think carefully about how they protect time for activities that require concentration and creativity. For established researchers who tend to work independently and less in teams, this resource may be particularly valuable because many derive meaning, energy and impact from activities that require uninterrupted thinking time. It …
Peer Discussion Guide: Building influence, recognition & strategic support
Boundary-spanning work often creates significant value for research, institutions, policy, industry, communities, and wider society. However, this work can sometimes feel difficult to articulate, evidence, or position within institutional systems that still prioritise more traditional academic markers of success. This collection of discussion resources explores how externally-facing and engagement-focused work can become more visible, valued, and sustainable. It focuses on building influence, evidencing contribution, understanding institutional systems, and developing ways to communicate the value of boundary-spanning work more clearly and strategically. This guide is designed for peer-facilitated discussion. There is no expert facilitator in the room. Everyone participates as an equal, taking shared responsibility for holding the structure, time, and quality of the conversation. Our Peer Discussion Guides Find out more about our Peer Discussion Guides and how you can use them to help you get more from our established researcher resources.
Peer Discussion Guide: Navigating expectations & protecting your capacity
Boundary-spanning work can create exciting opportunities, meaningful collaborations, and broader impact. It can also involve balancing competing expectations, navigating ambiguity, managing invisible labour, and sustaining multiple relationships simultaneously. Many of the challenges in collaborative work arise not from lack of goodwill, but from unclear assumptions about purpose, capacity, roles, communication, ownership, and ways of working. This collection of discussion resources focuses on how to create collaborations and stakeholder relationships that are clearer, more reciprocal, and more sustainable, both for yourself and for the people you work with. This guide is designed for peer-facilitated discussion. There is no expert facilitator in the room. Everyone participates as an equal, taking shared responsibility for holding the structure, time, and quality of the conversation. Our Peer Discussion Guides Find out more about our Peer Discussion Guides and how you can use them to help you get more from our established researcher resources.
Peer Discussion Guide: Building and evolving the lab
This guide is designed for peer-facilitated discussion to help you get more from the established researcher resources. It curates a small selection of related resources and offers a light structure for reflection and conversation. They are not training sessions. They are structured opportunities to pause, think, and learn with others. There is no expert facilitator in the room. Everyone participates as an equal, taking shared responsibility for holding the structure, time, and quality of the conversation. Our Peer Discussion Guides Find out more about our Peer Discussion Guides and how you can use them to help you get more from our established researcher resources.
Peer Discussion Guide: Designing the lab environment
This guide is designed for peer-facilitated discussion to help you get more from the established researcher resources. It curates a small selection of related resources and offers a light structure for reflection and conversation. They are not training sessions. They are structured opportunities to pause, think, and learn with others. There is no expert facilitator in the room. Everyone participates as an equal, taking shared responsibility for holding the structure, time, and quality of the conversation. Our Peer Discussion Guides Find out more about our Peer Discussion Guides and how you can use them to help you get more from our established researcher resources.
Stepping Up: Insights Into the Realities of Senior Leadership Roles in UK Higher Education
This blog from the Future Leaders Fellows Development Network is based on an honest and open discussion with speakers currently working in senior leadership roles within higher education. Career progression is often seen as the natural next step in a successful research career. You may experience pressure, from yourself or from your institution, to move into more senior leadership positions. It is important to make these decisions proactively and to negotiate them on your own terms. However, many people are unaware of, or unprepared for, the realities that can accompany these roles. These may include increased time pressures, greater political complexity, and strains on research activity, alongside new opportunities to influence culture, strategy, and institutional direction. This resource is designed to help you reflect on what stepping into a senior role might mean for you within your own personal and professional context. It may also help you identify the kinds of questions you want to explore before deciding whether a more senior leadership role is right for you. After reading, you might find it useful to arrange a few informal conversations or coffee catch-ups with colleagues working in different leadership roles. You could use some of the questions posed to …
Growing your research group – online resource for independent fellows and Early-Career PIs
This online toolkit from the Future Leaders Fellows Development Network is designed to help researchers at a critical transition point: moving from being primarily “hands-on” researchers to leading and managing small (and often rapidly expanding) research groups. While most UK universities provide training on grant writing, research ethics, and PhD supervision, there is limited tailored support for the organisational challenges of growing a group. The toolkit is aimed at PIs relatively early in their journey but contains advice that is useful and relevant to more established researchers. It offers models, reflection points and insights on: “To grow as a leader, I had to reduce my role as a front-line researcher. The hardest part was recognising that this was not letting go of something but pivoting toward what I was best at.” Jonathan Finch, Professor of Archaeology, University of York. Read more from Jonathan. What will you take forward? One thing to consider: Can you describe the kind of research group you actually want to be leading in two years’ time? Can you identify one important thing that you can actively take control of, rather than leave things chance?
Peer Discussion Guide: Leading effectively across complex, collaborative projects
This guide is designed for peer-facilitated discussion to help you get more from the established researcher resources. It curates a small selection of related resources and offers a light structure for reflection and conversation. They are not training sessions. They are structured opportunities to pause, think, and learn with others. There is no expert facilitator in the room. Everyone participates as an equal, taking shared responsibility for holding the structure, time, and quality of the conversation. Our Peer Discussion Guides Find out more about our Peer Discussion Guides and how you can use them to help you get more from our established researcher resources.
Peer Discussion Guide: Planning projects and project teams
This guide is designed for peer-facilitated discussion to help you get more from the established researcher resources. It curates a small selection of related resources and offers a light structure for reflection and conversation. They are not training sessions. They are structured opportunities to pause, think, and learn with others. There is no expert facilitator in the room. Everyone participates as an equal, taking shared responsibility for holding the structure, time, and quality of the conversation. Our Peer Discussion Guides Find out more about our Peer Discussion Guides and how you can use them to help you get more from our established researcher resources.
Learn from a case study of effective coordination of a multi-site research consortium
This paper by Steiner et al. describes how a five-institution research collaboration built and sustained effective multi-site coordination from launch through delivery. Whilst written in a health research context, the infrastructure challenges it addresses are directly familiar to anyone leading a multi-site UK research project: partners with different institutional systems and norms, data sharing complications, the risk of fragmented governance, and the practical difficulty of keeping distributed teams aligned around shared goals. The paper’s value lies not in providing a generic framework but in showing exactly what one team actually did, and why – making it a rich source of transferable ideas rather than abstract principles. The consortium’s approach was organised around six interconnected practices, each of which has a clear parallel in UK multi-site research contexts: The authors are explicit that most of these elements need to be planned and resourced at the proposal stage, not retrofitted once problems emerge. Application of team science best practices to the project management of a large, multi-site research consortium (Steiner et al., Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 2023) What will you take forward? One thing to consider: Reading this as a case study rather than a prescriptive guide, which one or two …
Build your project team deliberately, from first meeting to close
The Drexler–Sibbet Team Performance Model offers a practical roadmap for building and sustaining effective project teams. It maps seven predictable stages that teams move through – from initial orientation to high performance and renewal – each centred on a core question that the team must answer well before it can progress. For established researchers, who assemble new teams from scratch for specific grants or projects, often across institutional boundaries and with people who have not worked together before, the model is particularly valuable because it makes visible the work that typically goes undone: establishing shared purpose, building trust, and agreeing how decisions will be made, before the real delivery pressure begins. The seven stages and their central questions are: The model is also useful as a diagnostic when a project team is struggling: it helps identify whether the underlying problem is unresolved purpose, lack of trust, unclear roles, or something else entirely – each of which requires a different response. What will you take forward? One thing to consider: Think about a project team that underperformed or felt difficult to lead. Looking at the seven stages, at which point did the foundations start to feel shaky, and what would you …
Adapt your leadership style according to project phase and team
Note: This article requires access via HBR or an institutional library subscription. This classic Harvard Business Review article by Daniel Goleman draws on research with nearly 4,000 leaders to identify six distinct leadership styles and, crucially, the conditions under which each is most and least effective. Although written for a business audience, its framework translates directly to the research context, where the same researcher may need to lead a bid development team, manage a large multi-site delivery team, mentor an early career researcher, and navigate a difficult partner relationship – often within the same project lifecycle. The article’s central argument is that leadership style is not a fixed personality trait but a deliberate choice, and that the most effective leaders notice, and switch between styles fluidly as circumstances demand. “Research is a team sport. Be clear whether your greatest contribution is as the ‘star striker’ or the ‘coach,’ and align your role accordingly.” Nick Plant, Pro-Vice-Chancellor: Research and Innovation, University of Leeds. Read more from Nick. For those leading research, four styles are especially worth developing: What will you take forward? One thing to consider: Thinking about your current or most recent project, which leadership style did you default to? …
Understand what drives performance in distributed project teams
This Deloitte Insights article draws on survey research to identify what most strongly predicts team effectiveness in distributed, digitally-mediated working environments. Although written for a broad organisational audience, its findings translate directly to the research context: researchers leading time-limited, multi-site projects who need to assemble and sustain productive teams across institutional boundaries. The research is particularly valuable because it moves beyond assumptions about tools and technology to identify the relational factors that most reliably determine whether distributed teams succeed or struggle. The article’s central finding is striking – whether a team member has strong digital skills or access to good employer-provided tools matters less than whether they are part of a well-functioning team. For those leading complex, multi-institutional projects this reframes the challenge: the priority is building the conditions for team effectiveness, not just getting the logistics right. Three factors are identified as critical: What will you take forward? One thing to consider: In your current or next project team, what would need to be true for every member to feel safe raising a problem or admitting they don’t know how to do something — and how would you create that condition across institutional boundaries?
Build a project team structure that fits funder expectations
This UKRI guidance explains the different roles that can be included in funding applications submitted through the UKRI Funding Service, including role descriptions, responsibilities, eligibility, and costings guidance. It is particularly useful in a UK Higher Education context because it helps researchers match the design of their project team to the formal expectations of a major funder, rather than relying on inherited assumptions about who should be included and in what capacity. For established researchers who are increasingly shaping bids rather than simply contributing to them, it provides a practical framework for thinking about who needs to be named, how responsibilities should be framed, and how contributions can be recognised appropriately. “Research is a team sport. Be clear whether your greatest contribution is as the ‘star striker’ or the ‘coach,’ and align your role accordingly.” Nick Plant, Pro-Vice-Chancellor: Research and Innovation, University of Leeds What will you take forward? One thing to consider: Does the way you are currently framing your project team reflect the real contribution of each person, and how well would it stand up to UKRI scrutiny?
Make interdisciplinary collaborative projects more explicit, practical, and workable
This paper by Patel et al. offers a concise and practical introduction to starting collaborative projects across disciplines. It is especially useful because it focuses on the early design choices that often determine whether interdisciplinary work succeeds: building the team, assigning roles and responsibilities, agreeing ground rules, discussing authorship, and creating the conditions for trust and psychological safety. For established researchers – who are often at the point of convening interdisciplinary work rather than simply participating in it – the paper gives a clear basis for thinking through the practical mechanics of collaboration, rather than treating interdisciplinarity as an abstract aspiration. What will you take forward? One thing to try: Notice where in your current collaboration there are assumptions about roles, language, or authorship still implicit rather than properly discussed. Make a commitment to raise them at your next meeting, or arrange a review of how things are going.
Build collaborations that allow projects to scale up without fragmentation
This practical guide to big team science by Baumgartner HA et al. is particularly helpful for researchers beginning to work in larger collaborations that need more deliberate leadership than a small project team. It addresses issues such as leadership, governance, team design, communication, decision-making, collaborative writing, and infrastructure. For established researchers stepping into more flexible leadership positions, the value of the guide is that it treats leadership as a set of practices rather than simply a formal role, helping you create structures that allow collaboration to scale up without becoming fragmented. What will you take forward? One thing to consider: Which part of your current leadership approach would need to change if your project team doubled in size or complexity over the next year?
Learn approaches to setting up and managing a research lab
This practical guide to setting up and managing a lab at a research intensive institution by Bob Goldstein and Prachee Avasthi explores key considerations for researchers transitioning into a principal investigator role. It has many practical suggestions, however, for those who already experienced at managing research groups. It highlights the early decisions that shape the trajectory of a research group, including negotiating resources, designing lab space, recruiting a team, and establishing effective ways of working. Many of these aspects of lab leadership are rarely taught formally, meaning new PIs often learn through experience. The guide helps make these hidden elements of running a lab more visible. For Lab Builders, the resource highlights how decisions about infrastructure, hiring, and working practices can have long-term consequences for productivity and culture. Key insights include: The central message is that building a research group requires both scientific vision and organisational leadership. Early attention to infrastructure, relationships, and culture helps create the conditions for a productive research environment. “Recruitment and people management are central to success. Hire carefully and manage individuals, not generic roles.” Benjamin Lichman, Senior Research Fellow / Senior Lecturer, University of York What will you take forward? One thing to consider: Which …
Plan and manage your research group budget
This practical Science Careers article by Megan T brown introduces the financial realities of running a research group for the first time. Whilst framed for early career researchers, this guide has much practical advice for Established Researchers. The article provides a clear overview of the financial principles PIs need to run a sustainable research group. The resource is particularly relevant because it emphasises treating the lab as a small organisation with its own financial model. It highlights the importance of understanding institutional and funder rules, staff costs, equipment planning, and aligning spending decisions with longer-term research priorities. Key insights include: For new Lab Builders, the central message is that financial stewardship is a core leadership responsibility. Good budgeting enables researchers to support their team and respond strategically to emerging opportunities. What will you take forward? One thing to consider: How well do you understand the financial structure of your grant funding – and what conversations with finance colleagues might strengthen your financial planning?
Build a research group culture that is open, collaborative, and intellectually rigorous
This short but highly practical opinion paper by Gerd Gigerenzer sets out a series of “simple heuristics” for building and sustaining a successful research group. The paper is especially useful for Lab Builders because it focuses not just on research strategy, but on how to create the conditions in which people can do ambitious, collaborative work together. In particular, it highlights the value of having: This resource is particularly valuable for academics moving from being an individual researcher or leading a small team to leading a much larger team, because it makes visible the often-overlooked work of shaping culture, not just delivering outputs. “Collective impact and strong research culture matter more than individual achievement alone.” John Flint, Deputy Vice President – Research, University of Sheffield What will you take forward? One thing to try: Pick one or two “heuristics” from this paper that would most strengthen the culture of your group right now. Make a plan to put them into practice consistently.
Learn from real stories of external engagement and impact
The Research Adventure Podcast shares interviews with university researchers and research-adjacent professionals who have turned research into real-world outcomes through routes such as industry partnerships, spinouts, licensing, and social enterprise. It’s useful as “on-demand mentoring”: short, concrete stories that surface what works (and what doesn’t) when collaborating beyond the university. The podcast is helpful because it: “Networking with others has helped me find a sense of belonging and camaraderie.” Saniya Rabbani, Lecturer and Talking Therapies Clinical Tutor, University of Sheffield. Read more from Saniya. What will you take forward? One thing to consider: Which single capability do you most need to strengthen right now, and which episode will you use to explore one small change in your approach?
Ensure your external-facing work is recognised, using the Knowledge Exchange Concordat
Principle 6 of the KE Concordat (which it is likely your HEI will have signed) focuses on recognition and rewards: universities should recognise and reward staff and students who deliver high-quality knowledge exchange. For people doing extensive partner-facing work, this is a useful lever because it points to accepted good practice for recognition including: Reviews of institutional action plans have found Principle 6 is often self-scored lower than other principles – suggesting recognition/reward is a common development gap for institutions. What will you take forward? One thing to consider: How visible is the KE Concordat in your institution? In what ways is principle 6 supported and how might you use the expectations of principle 6 to ensure your KE work is recognised? “Audit your workload. Deprioritise service that is low in visibility or misaligned with progression.” Jiao Ji, Lecturer in Finance, University of Sheffield. Read more from Jiao.
Strengthen your public and policy engagement using curated tools and guidance
If you are looking to improve the quality and impact of your engagement work, there are two complementary hubs that bring together trusted tools, frameworks, and guidance from across the UK landscape. These are particularly useful when you want both practical “how to” support and help navigating which approaches best fit your context. The National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) resources hub offers a comprehensive collection focused on public and community engagement, including practical tools, case examples, and guidance on inclusive and ethical practice. The University Policy Engagement Network’s Resource Navigator acts as a curated gateway to policy engagement toolkits, helping you quickly identify relevant resources for areas such as evidence use in policy, project scoping, and rapid evidence assessments. Together, these resources provide: These hubs work particularly well as starting points for self-directed development or when designing new engagement activity and wanting to ground it in established good practice. NCCPE resources hub UPEN CAPE Resource Navigator for policy engagement toolkits What will you take forward? One thing to consider: Looking ahead 6 months, what change or outcome do you want from your engagement work, who needs to be involved, and what one approach or suggestion from these toolkits …
Improve partnership health by explicitly addressing equity and power
The Association of Commonwealth Universities Equitable Research Partnerships toolkit focuses on improving partnership sustainability through equity, power-awareness, and shared practice. It is particularly useful for collaborations that span institutions, countries, or community/NGO contexts, where differences in voice, credit, resourcing, and decision rights can quietly undermine success. It can help you design how to: “Networks matter, but relationships matter more than visibility.” Martina Egedusevic, Impact Fellow, University of Exeter. Read more from Martina. What will you take forward? One thing to consider: Where does power sit in your partnership (funding, agenda-setting, authorship, data), and what one change would make decision-making more equitable?
Use practical tools to engage with policy audiences and processes effectively
This EU policy engagement toolkit offers practical formats, methods, and examples for engaging with policy actors and policy processes. It is useful if you want to move beyond generic “dissemination” and develop a more intentional approach to influencing and dialogue. What will you take forward? One thing to consider: Which of the formats (or combination of formats) of engagement would be best suited to the policy impact you would like your research to have?
Consciously choose your approach to research-practice translation
This peer-reviewed paper (Evans et al., 2014) provides an in-depth exploration of “boundary spanning” interventions, the different approaches that can be taken and why they matter for research-practice translation. In particular it explores two types of “boundary spanning” which can be useful to think about in terms of the type of relationships you wish to build with external stakeholders. What will you take forward? One thing to consider: For the type of KE activities you are undertaking which approach (bridging or blurred) would best suit your intended outcomes? What would be the positive and negative implications of these approaches in your context?
Systematically plan, deliver, and evidence Knowledge Exchange and its impact
This Oxford Education toolkit provides practical tools and prompts for thinking through pathways to impact and knowledge exchange (KE). It is especially useful when you are beginning to design Knowledge Exchange activities and includes information and advice on: It also contains an extensive bibliography linked to KE and research impact. “Impact takes time, and from the inside it often looks slow, relational and messy.” Martina Egedusevic, Impact Fellow, University of Exeter. Read more from Martina. What will you take forward? One thing to consider: What is the one most important outcome you want to enable, and what is the most credible piece of evidence you could capture to show progress toward it?
Design stakeholder engagement that is credible, inclusive, and effective
This University of Oxford blog summarises a report by Dr Caitlin Hafferty that provides ten research-led recommendations that translate into practical choices about how to engage stakeholders well. It is particularly useful when you are dealing with different levels of power, competing incentives, and different definitions of “success”. The report that is summarised: “I learned that I can make the most impact with being sincerely interested in the full persons who are present before me. What are their interests? What do they dislike the most? We go day to day without actually seeing people as entire human beings. It is seeing and appreciating all of who someone is that gets that person to feel seen. And imagine how being seen can be empowering and how empowered people can change the world.” Read more from this career story What will you take forward? One thing to consider: What is the real purpose of your stakeholder engagement, and who must be involved in it to be meaningful?
Use proven templates to negotiate and structure external collaboration projects
The Lambert Toolkit is a sector-recognised set of model agreements and guidance for collaborations between universities and external partners (particularly industry). It is designed to reduce ambiguity early, make negotiations smoother, and prevent partnerships stalling due to uncertainty around IP, roles, and outputs. It provides model agreements covering common collaboration scenarios and helps you anticipate and resolve IP and exploitation questions up front. What will you take forward? One thing to consider: What is the single most likely “pressure point” in your collaboration (IP, publication, timelines, exclusivity), and which Lambert collaboration model best helps you address it?
Get started with university – industry collaboration in a structured, low-risk way
This PLOS Community Guide breaks down university – industry collaboration into manageable steps, with an emphasis on clarity of expectations and mutual benefit. While framed for early career researchers, it is very transferable for established researchers who want to formalise external collaboration or scale it without creating avoidable risk. The guide will help you to: What will you take forward? One thing to consider: What are the three expectations you most need to make explicit at the start (outputs, timelines, IP/publication), and what do you assume the partner expects? “Not all networking needs to result in an immediate output or grant. There is value in simply keeping in touch.” Professor of Biomechanics. Read more from this career story.
Use consulting to build external credibility and open up impact pathways
This Nature Careers article offers a practical, realistic view of why consulting can be worth doing as an academic – not only for income, but to build insight into real-world problems, strengthen external relationships, and develop a clearer sense of how your expertise translates beyond the university, and accelerate knowledge exchange. In particular it sets out the typical benefits academics and society report from consulting (insight, networks, reputation, impact) and discusses the challenges to be navigated at an institutional level. “You should never underestimate the convening power of being an academic. We have independence and legitimacy that allow us to bring together people from industry, government and civil society.” Bob Doherty, Professor of Marketing and Sustainable & Responsible Business, University of York. Read more from Bob. What will you take forward? One thing to consider: What is the clearest consultancy offer you could make to an external partner in one sentence?
From principal investigator to institutional leader: choosing what to let go of in order to lead well
Nick Plant Role: Pro-Vice-Chancellor: Research and InnovationDiscipline: Systems ToxicologyInstitution: University of Leeds Please note: This story reflects the personal experience and perspective of its contributor. Academic careers vary widely, and others may experience different challenges and opportunities. Career Story My career has involved transitioning from a research-focussed role to a leadership-focussed one. That shift required some deliberate decisions about what to stop doing and where I could have the greatest impact. If I could advise my younger self, I would say two things. First, be kinder to yourself. The decisions you make are the best you can make at the time. Looking back and ruminating over them does not change them. Second, be true to yourself. I spent too much time worrying about what others thought, rather than concentrating on what was right for me. One assumption I had to unlearn was that changing direction might be seen as a failure or a step away from “real” research. In fact, if you do what you do best, people will respect that. And if they do not, that is their problem, not yours. Over time, I have realised that I can make the most impact by supporting others to be their best selves. Research …
Crossing disciplinary boundaries: shaping a career between history and archaeology
Jonathan Finch Role: Professor of Archaeology / Director, White Rose College of the Arts and HumanitiesDiscipline: Historical Archaeology (Post-Medieval)Institution: University of York Please note: This story reflects the personal experience and perspective of its contributor. Academic careers vary widely, and others may experience different challenges and opportunities. Career Story I trained as an historian but gradually moved toward archaeology, particularly the landscape, eventually taking up a position in an archaeology department rather than a history department. The shift was not a rejection of one field for another, but a recognition that my interests and strengths sat across both. Moving between disciplines required confidence. Interdisciplinary research can feel difficult, particularly when established disciplinary traditions appear fixed and guarded. Early on, it can seem as though expertise in another field is sacred or unattainable. Over time, I learned that this is not the case. If I could advise my younger self, I would say: trust your own instincts but take advice from those you trust. You have a unique skill set. That combination of training, methods and perspectives can be turned to your advantage. Working across disciplinary boundaries has allowed me to add value in ways that might not have been possible had I stayed within a …