Volume LVI, Number 2
Ghostwriting Grants: Uncovering the Experiences of Professional Research Staff in Grant Capture
Jacqueline M. I. Torti
Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
Kevin Oswald
Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
Farah Friesen
Centre for Advancing Collaborative Healthcare & Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Mariam Hayward
Western Research, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
Lorelei Lingard
Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
Abstract
Universities worldwide are increasingly employing professional research staff (PRS) to support institutional research missions of driving research revenue and excellence. A primary function of PRS roles is to support faculty in grant capture, particularly as funding bodies emphasize equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), knowledge mobilization (KMb), and Indigenous research. Due to their growing prevalence, PRS roles have attracted attention to improve their visibility and sustainability. However, they remain underexplored in institutional research settings, particularly regarding the pre-award grant landscape. This study examines the evolving roles of PRS in Canadian universities, focusing on their contributions to grant capture and the structures influencing their recognition. Using a descriptive qualitative design, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 participants, including PRS and research office leaders, from 10 universities. Participants held roles spanning EDI, KMb, research development, and grant management, offering diverse perspectives on the challenges and contributions of PRS. Thematic analysis revealed four key findings: PRS play multifaceted roles that blur technical and conceptual; PRS roles are perceived to be misunderstood by those utilizing their services; recognition of PRS efforts is inconsistent and often limited to informal or interpersonal contexts; and PRS work remains undervalued. Together, these issues perpetuate the invisibility of PRS work, challenging the success of current strategies to address visibility and highlighting gaps in institutional acknowledgment. Our results suggest that undervaluing PRS contributions risks limiting their potential and undermining grant capture success. This study underscores the need for deeper engagement with PRS experiences to enhance their roles and contributions in academia.
Keywords: Third space professionals, grant writing, research administration, research office, professional roles, research management
Introduction
Universities around the world have professional research staff (PRS) roles to provide both administrative and specialized grant capture support (de Jong & del Junco, 2024). Canada, following developments in the US and the UK, is increasingly developing domain-specific PRS roles. These roles respond to emerging emphases in research funding opportunities, such as equity, diversity, inclusion, and decolonization (EDID), knowledge mobilization (KMb), and Indigenous research, and support faculty in these areas (Coaldrake & Stedman, 1999; Poli et al., 2023; Smith et al., 2021; Whitchurch, 2013).
Research on third space professionals in higher education has explored questions of professionalization, identity, and career development, largely for individuals working in educational development (Coaldrake & Stedman, 1999; Gray, 2015; Macfarlane, 2011; Poli et al., 2023; Smith et al., 2021; Whitchurch, 2008, 2013, 2018; Yang-Yoshihara, n.d.). There is less literature related to PRS within higher education research, and even less focused on third space professionals supporting pre-award research, that is the work related to grant capture (Agostinho et al., 2020; de Jong & del Junco, 2024; Santos et al., 2021; Torti et al., 2024). This is a critical gap: contemporary funders have mandated knowledge user partnership, EDID, and KMb, which has spurred the introduction of specialized PRS roles in academia to help institutions, and their faculty, to produce competitive, responsive, and impactful research (Coaldrake & Stedman, 1999; de Jong & del Junco, 2024; Ross, 2017; Smith et al., 2021; Stoller, 2023; Whitchurch, 2013). Further underscoring the importance of these roles, there is “mounting pressure on universities to produce research and increase research capacity”, (Ross, 2017, p. 20) and “research success is increasingly an indicator of a university’s prestige and value” (Ross et al., 2019, p. 1). As universities respond to these funding mandates and strengthen their support for faculty applying for grants, the role and need of PRS will only grow (Whitchurch, 2022).
Third space professionals, such as PRS, occupy roles that blur the traditional divide between academic and administrative staff (Berman & Pitman, 2010; Enders & Naidoo, 2022). Studies have revealed that PRS can feel undervalued, underacknowledged and unsupported in these ambiguous roles (Ryttberg, 2022). The associated challenges of attracting and retaining PRS highlight the need for a deeper understanding of their contributions and experiences, along with calls for deeper insight into their influence on knowledge development (de Jong & del Junco, 2024; Welch & Brantmeier, 2021). Without this deeper understanding, universities risk limiting the potential of PRS and undermining the grant capture success these roles were designed to help achieve.
This study explores the evolving roles and contributions of university PRS in the pre-award academic landscape of Canadian universities. By exploring how PRS contribute to grant capture, and the structures that shape their contributions, we aim to describe the complexities of visibility and recognition within these roles. Building on prior research (de Jong & del Junco, 2024; Santos et al., 2021; Yang-Yoshihara et al., 2023; Zink et al., 2022), this work emphasizes the need to understand the roles and contributions of PRS within academia.
Our research questions are:
- What is the nature of the contributions made by PRS—including those representing EDID and KMb portfolios, as well as general research support roles—to faculty grant applications in university research offices?
- How are these contributions recognized (or not) within grant applications and broader university structures?
Methods
Methodological Approach
This study employed a descriptive qualitative research design (Sandelowski, 2000; Smith & Griffith, 2022). Descriptive qualitative research is well-suited for exploring complex, real-world phenomena, and it is widely recognized across disciplines for its capacity to capture detailed, context-rich descriptions of participants' lived experiences and subjective interpretations, particularly when limited prior research exists on the subject matter (Auerbach et al., 2016; Doyle et al., 2020; Sandelowski, 2000).
Data Collection and Analysis
Sample
Participants in this study were PRS working in a university in Canada. We purposefully sampled a subset of third space professionals (Doyle et al., 2020): PRS working in research grants offices with pre-award roles. To capture multiple perspectives within this group, we included PRS from different universities, aiming for variation in organizational environments, responsibilities, and specialization (e.g., EDID, KMb, grant development). In addition, we considered personal demographics such as gender, race, academic training, career stage, and professional goals, recognizing that these factors might shape how PRS experience and navigate their roles. We also employed snowball sampling, encouraging participants to share the details of our study with other PRS who might wish to contribute their experiences.
In addition to sampling PRS, we included leaders of research offices and teams who oversee or directly manage the work of PRS in our sample. This enabled us to reach a sufficient understanding of the phenomenon from a variety of relevant perspectives. Throughout the study, our sampling strategy responded to emerging data. As new insights arose during data collection, we adapted our approach to explore the full complexity of PRS contributions to grant capture and the factors affecting their recognition.
Recruitment
To identify university-employed PRS, we used a multifaceted recruitment strategy. First, we accessed universities’ research office directories, which were publicly available on their websites, allowing us to identify individuals serving in specialized research roles. Additionally, we leveraged the Canadian Association for Research Administrators (CARA) listserv, a key resource for reaching professionals involved in research administration across Canada. This recruitment approach helped to ensure that our sampling reflected a diversity of university settings, disciplinary contexts, and research support structures that PRS operate within. In addition to targeting PRS, we expanded our recruitment to include research administrative leaders who oversee PRS roles, as well as research team leads responsible for directing grant-related work.
Interviews
Consistent with qualitative descriptive inquiry, we conducted semi-structured individual interviews to gain an in-depth understanding of the roles, contributions, and recognition of PRS in the grant creation process (Auerbach et al., 2016; Doyle et al., 2020). We asked about participants’ day-to-day roles, the nature of their involvement in grant capture, their perceptions of how their contributions are recognized, and the challenges they face in their work. Interviews, which lasted approximately 60 minutes, were conducted via Zoom, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim using Zoom’s automated transcription service. Transcripts were then reviewed by a member of the research team for accuracy and anonymized.
Data Analysis
Data collection and analysis took place in an iterative fashion, with insights from the analysis shaping future data collection (Mayan, 2016). Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis (Clarke & Braun, 2021), which provides a clearly articulated set of analytical steps, ideal for collaborative analysis with a research team (Clarke & Braun, 2021; Doyle et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2017). Thematic analysis also offered theoretical flexibility, encouraging us to be explicit in our use of the third space professional theoretical framing to inform the development of themes and analytical insights drawn (Clarke & Braun, 2021).
The analysis process involved multiple stages of coding to ensure sufficient rigour and consistency. Initial coding was conducted independently by several members of the research team to identify key themes and patterns in the data. Regular team meetings were held to compare codes, discuss interpretations, and reconcile any discrepancies. This process included members of the team independently coding the same transcripts and comparing their insights. Patterns across codes were discussed in detail, and themes were developed and refined based on the analysis of these patterns (Clarke & Braun, 2021).
We collected data until a level of thematic sufficiency (LaDonna et al., 2021) had been reached, that is, to the point when no new insights were being drawn from the data related to the phenomenon being explored. The nature of data collection and analysis created a deep understanding of the experiences of PRS while maintaining methodological consistency and transparency.
Results
We conducted 17 interviews to explore the experiences of PRS in grant capture. The sample included participants from 10 universities: 16 participants were from 10 Ontario universities, and one participant was from a university in Alberta. Given the limited number of specialized PRS roles within individual universities, we refrain from disclosing the specific names of the universities to protect participant confidentiality.
The majority of participants held specialized research roles that focused on EDID in research (n=8). Other roles represented in our participant sample included research officers (n=3), librarians (n=2), and a specialist in KMb (n=1), all of whom contributed to the pre-award grant-capture process. Additionally, three participants held senior research leadership and management positions and provided a broader organizational perspective on the contributions and challenges faced by PRS in their work. This diversity in roles and university contexts enriched our understanding of PRS experiences and the multifaceted nature of their involvement in grant capture, which we organize below into four main findings related to contributions, roles, recognition and invisibility.
Types of Contributions
The contributions of PRS were multifaceted, spanning technical, conceptual, and project management roles. Each type of contribution played a distinct role in the development of research grants and in the implementation of research projects.
Technical Contributions
Technical contributions were foundational and involved detailed compliance checks and administrative support throughout the grant capture process. PRS were responsible for ensuring that grant applications met both funder and university guidelines, with tasks that included budget preparation, formatting checks, and pre-submission reviews. As Participant 15 described, “I receive, usually within 2 weeks in advance, a complete grant application for external research funding. And we are reviewing that application with a lens of compliance with the funders’ guidelines, terms, and policies.” Similarly, another participant (Participant 11) emphasized that their role often had a “certain technical part to it. Like the actual editing, writing support, making sure things are phrased clearly, but also that they align with the sponsor requirements with the stated criteria or the evaluation matrix.” Participant 4 described how important these technical contributions are: “As a rule, the technical side is really important, right? Like that can throw an application out,” but expressed wanting to contribute more, explaining, “I mean, as I say, if you have the time, it’s great. If you’re rushed, it’s maddening because you can’t give all the help that you need to give.”
Conceptual Contributions
PRS participants consistently spoke about how sometimes their involvement not only shaped how researchers framed their grant applications but also the broader conceptualization and design of research studies. This influence began early in the grant process, where PRS provided critical input on aspects such as research design, methodology, and even the framing of research questions to better align with EDID principles and community engagement best practices. Participant 12 described how they provide feedback and guidance in the early stages of grant development that
… falls more on the on the conceptual side. I would define that as being driven by ideas, driven by the generation of content, and driven by a series of open-ended questions that don’t have fixed answers… and driven by the desire to develop a clear plan that is informed by evidence and other good practices.
This type of engagement reflected how PRS advisors did more than simply ensure compliance; they actively guided researchers in designing more robust research plans. This guidance often required PRS to influence not just the content but the approach of the research. For example, Participant 1 highlighted how, by meeting with researchers early on, they were able to “rethink how [the researcher] is pitching it,” which sometimes led to substantial shifts in the study's framing and objectives. In this way, PRS contributions shaped the conceptual foundation of projects. Importantly, many participants found that the boundary between technical and conceptual is blurred, suggesting an overlap that required negotiation in their work.
Project Management Contributions
In addition to their technical and conceptual work, PRS often took on project management responsibilities that supported the coordination of larger grant applications and the development of knowledge mobilization initiatives. These contributions involved coordinating multi-team projects, organizing meetings, setting timelines, managing relationships and building partnerships. Participant 17, for example, described their involvement in “knowledge mobilization, running all the social media for the Department of Research” at their respective institution, which included hosting events and connecting researchers with community stakeholders. Others assisted in organizing significant university events, like Participant 10, who shared that they were “involved in organizing workshops, doing drop-ins, and planning events like the International Women’s Day event.” These broader contributions amplified the impact of research and helped to bridge the gap between research findings and impactful KMb activities.
Misunderstood Roles
Perhaps because of the diverse range of contributions, PRS roles were often perceived as misunderstood. These misunderstandings created challenges and emotional burden. Participants reported wide-ranging assumptions among researchers, regardless of seniority, about the responsibilities of PRS. Some assumed that PRS were responsible for writing sections in grant applications or handling direct community engagement/partnership development, which often fell well outside their intended role. One participant noted,
They’re led to believe that if there’s an EDI section in the grant, someone in the research office will just write it for them. Then you meet, and it’s like, no, my role is to advise—you have to take responsibility (Participant 4).
Situations like these caused frustration for PRS, who frequently found themselves needing to clarify and assert the boundaries of their roles. This lack of clarity also had an emotional impact. PRS described an emotional toll associated with continuously setting boundaries with researchers. Participant 13 captured this dynamic, describing how certain features of grant applications were considered less important by faculty, and their way of offloading these sections of the grant was by trying to delegate them to PRS:
EDI is also a dumping ground for all the crap that happens. It’s like doing the work no one else wants to do… it’s just like you’re a city dump, right? Everyone comes with their garbage and throws it on you.
Participant 4 similarly reflected:
What’s not so rewarding is people who are very difficult to work with, who don’t want to do it, who feel like they’re being forced to do EDI, who feel like this is just a trend that they have to follow, and they don’t really treat it seriously, and they don’t treat it as part of their competency as an academic researcher.
Participants also reported ethical tensions and sensitivities when PRS roles were misunderstood, particularly around facilitating relationships with communities. Advisors often encountered researchers who, lacking an adequate understanding of role boundaries, approached sensitive relationships inappropriately. Participant 8 shared a vivid example:
And you do, unfortunately, get some non-Indigenous researchers who are maybe more advanced in their careers, who feel entitled to a certain level of support. I have been asked some truly outrageous things. One of the ones that still sticks with me is…this one researcher insisting that I introduce them to my Chief because he had a project that would solve [a local Indigenous crisis]. And I was like, nope, nope.
This account illustrated the potential for substantial ethical missteps and harm to communities when researchers were unaware of boundaries. PRS like Participant 8 found themselves in challenging positions, needing to both protect community trust and educate researchers on sustainable, respectful approaches:
I think the sticking point where we're currently experiencing some, I wouldn't say negative feedback, but I think more surprised from non-Indigenous folks is that we're not going to introduce you to people like, I'm not going to introduce you to my cousin. I'm not going to introduce you to my Chief…And we usually try to frame it in a way as like, well, you want to have a relationship with this person because that's the best and wise practice for Indigenous research.
This example highlighted the importance of clearly defining the roles of PRS, ensuring that they were empowered to work within boundaries that protected both their responsibilities and the communities involved.
Forms of Recognition
Participants shared experiences of both formal and informal recognition, emphasizing how these acknowledgments shaped their job satisfaction and motivation. From being named on grants to receiving heartfelt thank-you notes, the diversity in recognition preferences spoke to the varied ways individuals sought and received acknowledgment for their work.
Formal Recognition
Formal recognition, such as being named on grants, emerged as a contentious topic among participants. While some viewed this as an important acknowledgment of their intellectual contributions, others expressed hesitance about associating their names with projects, especially if they were not involved post-award. One participant articulated, “When I’m actually providing feedback and… making meaningful contributions, I think being named on the grant is a fair way of recognizing the work” (Participant 13). Conversely, another participant highlighted ethical concerns, stating:
I would have a problem being named on an individual grant because that, to me, is not equitable because I can't be helping one researcher and not helping others. So, I can't really be named, in my opinion. Like this is just kind of part of my personal code. I guess as an EDII [Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Indigenization] practitioner. Like it wouldn't be fair to other people if I'm included in somebody's individual research project, and then I'm not included in other similar projects. I should either be named on all grants or not at all” (Participant 4).
Some participants noted that being named on grants is appropriate, and the mechanisms for this are mandated by the university: “We do have an authorship policy… ensuring that contributions are recognized and framed accordingly” (Participant 14). Yet, PRS described cases where they significantly shaped the development of grant proposals or project outcomes, and such credit was not given: “There isn’t that recognition of excellent work when it comes to getting the grant approved. I was never named despite doing large portions of the writing” (Participant 17). This ambivalence illustrated the complexities surrounding formal recognition.
Informal Recognition
Beyond formal recognition, many participants expressed a desire to be recognized and appreciated more informally as well. Participant 4 questioned “whether we are being appreciated in the right way” and advocated that “we should be talking about other types of acknowledgements and having strategies for the research community to really appreciate us and see us for what we are” (Participant 4). Participant 14 shared this sentiment, stating:
I think just acknowledging and recognizing is another way that can affirm that the contributions that people are making that appear to be invisible, that may not formally require their names appearing on something, but where we are seeing them, and we’re seeing the work that they’re doing.
Informal recognition, particularly direct expressions of appreciation from colleagues and supervisors, emerged as highly valued among participants. As one participant noted, “A thank you email is a huge form of recognition… It drives me to go an extra mile for them because it’s as simple as the most common-sense thing you can do” (Participant 13). Many participants appreciated such gestures, including verbal praise and expressions of gratitude and reflected on how they influenced their motivation and engagement.
Invisibility of the Work
The inconsistency in our findings about recognition for PRS work may be related to its invisibility. Many participants described their work as unseen or unappreciated, especially within formal university structures. Intellectual property policies, for example, often stipulated that tools, or intellectual contributions produced by staff members were owned by the university rather than credited to the individual. Participant 4 voiced their frustration with this approach: “We are brilliant, have PhDs, and create valuable tools, but everything we produce is property of the university.” Participants felt an emotional impact of this ongoing lack of recognition and described being "really disappointed" to "find out through the grapevine that money had been awarded without my knowledge" (Participant 1). And emotions were not only in the moment: one participant described them "linger[ing] grossly in my mouth" (Participant 1).
Lack of visibility also posed barriers to professional development. Participant 12 explained that “recognition in the form of a job title and proper attribution of work is crucial. It’s not just about visibility but also about proper acknowledgment and support”. This absence of formalized recognition had potential implications for career advancement. Participant 8 highlighted these complexities:
It doesn't help me in my performance appraisal. They don't necessarily write a letter that would go to my file that says, [Name] gets a five out of five for her contributions to X, Y, Z, project. I think there should be more conversations about how our work is recognized. I would really appreciate that… having the ability to show the depth and breadth of the work that I do… it’s a lot of invisibilized work, a LOT of invisibilized work.
Discussion
Our findings highlight how PRS perceive their contributions, roles, recognition and invisibility as they work in the pre-award space of supporting grant capture. Our discussion uses these findings to advance three arguments: we challenge recent assertations that the PRS invisibility problem is resolved for formalized third space professionals (Whitchurch, 2024); we caution that the undervaluation of PRS contributions may impoverish their work and undermine institutional success and reputation; and we extend the notion of ‘recognition’ beyond institutional acknowledgement to include interpersonal appreciation, emphasizing that recognition is deeply tied to a sense of belonging.
Invisibility remains a problem for PRS in our study. The literature distinguishes formalized third space professionals from individuals “simply working in the third space”, the latter characterized as lacking formal recognition and university support while the former enjoy more visibility and recognition (Whitchurch, 2024). However, our findings suggest that the challenges of recognition and visibility persist in pre-award settings. All our participants held formalized third space roles: they were PRS engaged in specialized areas such as EDID, KMb, and grant capture support, yet they reported feeling that their work remained invisible and unrecognized. This finding prompts us to question why PRS experiences in the pre-award space might align with individuals ‘working in third space’. One reason might be the fluidity of these roles: they are formal, and specialized, but the work is poorly defined—sometimes technical, sometimes conceptual, sometimes managerial. When the boundaries of third space roles are ambiguous, it requires individuals to continuously adapt and leverage social and professional capital to effectively navigate these spaces (Whitchurch, 2024). The reliance on personal networks and informal strategies, combined with limited institutional support, contributes to the invisibility of third space professionals’ work. While partnerships with academic, professional, and external stakeholders can amplify contributions (Whitchurch, 2024), the lack of institutional acknowledgment for conceptual contributions, experienced by PRS in our study, lead them to feel that their work is undervalued and invisible.
This undervaluation of PRS contributions matters for PRS work and for institutional reputation, which is closely tied to institutional granting success. Many of the PRS in our study held advanced degrees, including PhDs, [similar to the literature on professional staff in higher education (Acker et al., 2019; Collinson, 2006; Kirkland & Stackhouse, 2011; Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017; Szekeres, 2011)], and they brought both discipline-specific expertise and methodological rigour to the design, development and application of grants. However, much of their everyday work centered on technical contributions. This is in part due to structural influences, such as the expectation to review hundreds of grants, reflected in the popularity of research office metrics, such as the number of grants reviewed (and the absence of qualitative metrics, such as conceptual influence on grant designs). What gets counted becomes what counts, such that the technical/administrative contribution is privileged over the conceptual/intellectual work (Yang-Yoshihara et al., 2023). Driven by research revenue metrics, recognition often prioritizes quantitative metrics, such as the number of grant applications submitted, over qualitative contributions like conceptual heavy lifting (Kulakowski, 2023; Yang-Yoshihara et al., 2023). This emphasis on volume impoverishes the potential of PRS work, limiting their ability to engage deeply with intellectual aspects of grant development (Yang-Yoshihara, n.d.). Although their roles are fluid—frequently bridging technical and conceptual domains—PRS professionals often find their value-added contributions unrecognized by universities and the leaders within them (Yang-Yoshihara, n.d.). This overemphasis on metrics like grant throughput, coupled with a lack of attention to individual expertise, reflects a troubling tendency in pre-award spaces to equate “more” with “better,” ultimately sidelining the rich, intellectual potential of PRS work (Yang-Yoshihara et al., 2023). In this situation, we caution that PRS work is at risk of being impoverished.
Enabling PRS to work to their full scope by leveraging both technical skills and conceptual expertise can help fulfill the mandate of research offices by enhancing research excellence at the pre-award stage. It may also help PRS to flourish; this flourishing is connected to a dynamic process of PRS identity formation and reformation, which is responsive to evolving structures (Whitchurch, 2023; Yang-Yoshihara et al., 2023). Flourishing matters, because without it, PRS neither stay nor grow in their roles. Without both, institutional research mandates suffer, and individual faculty struggle to meet these mandates due to insufficient support (Welch & Brantmeier, 2021).
Flourishing can also be supported by a refined sense of what counts as ‘recognition’ for PRS work. Our work suggests that PRS may feel undervalued not because their work is not recognized, but because of the nature of that recognition. To date, the focus has been on formalized institutional recognition (Whitchurch, 2024) such as being named on a grant or receiving formal awards; speaking to not only job satisfaction but also the ability to progress professionally. However, our findings highlight the value of more personalized and informal acknowledgments. Participants in our study valued expressions of respect for their expertise, acknowledgment of their contributions to university success, and a collegial appreciation for their intellectual work. For these staff members, greater visibility can pave the way toward a more inclusive and appreciative academic environment, which would have affirmed the essential work they contributed to the success of research projects and teams. This contrasts with assumptions in the literature that PRS prioritize formal recognition at institutional and departmental levels (Whitchurch, 2024). Our participants expressed not only a desire for formal recognition but also informal individualized recognition, with acts as simple as showing appreciation, listening to their insights, and demonstrating an understanding of the intellectual and conceptual value they bring to grant development and capture.
PRS working in the pre-award space do more than enhance a university's capacity to submit grants; they have the potential to significantly elevate the quality of grant applications (Ito & Watanabe, 2020). By fostering thoughtful integration of key priorities such as EDID, KMb, and research partnerships, PRS can help universities align more effectively with the mandates of funding organizations, leading to increased grant capture (de Jong & del Junco, 2024; Ito & Watanabe, 2020). However, this potential can only be realized when the roles they occupy and the university structures that govern them provide the necessary space for meaningful contributions. It is equally critical that these contributions are both acknowledged and valued—not only at the university level but also in ways that empower PRS to work to their full scope. Recognizing and leveraging their expertise is essential for advancing the broader goals of university research funding at large, without losing sight of the individuals supporting these goals.
While this work expands on the current literature on PRS, especially those within the pre-award space, we recognize some inherent limitations in our study design. All but one of our study participants worked within universities situated in Ontario, limiting the transferability of our findings. Different provincial mandates and different funding opportunities may be present in provinces outside of Ontario, and these have not been captured in our data. However, many of our participants reflected on their roles in supporting grant applications for the national, tri-council agencies—the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC)—and we expect that their experiences related to these national funding bodies would resonate across Canada. In addition, this work focuses on the experiences of PRS representing specialized roles in EDID and KMb, but we recognize that there are many other PRS, such as research associates who support grant capture whose perceptions and experiences may not be reflected in the data. Future research is needed to both expand participation to PRS from across Canada and to those representing more general research support roles.
Conclusions
This study underscores the critical role of PRS in advancing university mandates of research excellence and research revenue. Our findings highlight the selective (in)visibility of PRS work, which has significant implications for their ability to fully realize these university mandates. When PRS work is limited to technical oversight, it undervalues PRS’ conceptual contributions and the potential of PRS to flourish in these roles. While institutional recognition remains essential, our participants also emphasized the importance of interpersonal appreciation from their research colleagues. This dual need for recognition suggests that PRS value not only formal acknowledgment of their contributions but also relational validation that fosters a sense of belonging and collegiality within research teams. Such recognition—both institutional and interpersonal—validates their contributions and their capacity to contribute meaningfully to the broader goals of the university. We call for increased visibility, improved recognition, and expanded career development opportunities for PRS, urging universities and research teams to prioritize these efforts as integral to the pursuit of research excellence.
Authors' Note
Jacqueline Torti
Centre for Education Research and Innovation
Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry
Medical Sciences Building, Room 102A
Western University
London, Ontario, Canada N6G 2V4
Email: jtorti2@uwo.ca
Kevin Oswald
Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
Farah Friesen
Centre for Advancing Collaborative Healthcare & Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Mariam Hayward
Western Research, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
Lorelei Lingard
Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jacqueline Torti, Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Medical Sciences Building, Room 102A, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada N6G 2V4. Email: jtorti2@uwo.ca
References
Acker, S., McGinn, M. K., & Campisi, C. (2019). The work of university research administrators: Praxis and professionalization. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 1(1), 61-85. https://doi.org/10.47989/kpdc67
Agostinho, M., Moniz Alves, C., Aresta, S., Borrego, F., Borlido-Santos, J., Cortez, J., Santos, J., Costa, T. L., Lopes, J. A., Moreira, S., Trindade, M., Varela, C., & Vidal, S. (2020). The interface of science: The case for a broader definition of research management. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 24(1), 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2018.1543215
Auerbach, A. D., Kripalani, S., Vasilevskis, E. E., Sehgal, N., Lindenauer, P. K., Metlay, J. P., Fletcher, G., Ruhnke, G. W., Flanders, S. A., Williams, M. V., Thomas, L., Giang, V., Herzig, S. J., Patel, K., Boscardin, W. J., Robinson, E. J., Schnipper, J. L., & Kim, C. (2016). Preventability and causes of readmissions in a national cohort of general medicine patients. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(4), 484-493. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7863
Berman, J. E., & Pitman, T. (2010). Occupying a ‘third space’: Research trained professional staff in Australian universities. Higher Education, 60, 157-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9292-z
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications.
Coaldrake, P., & Stedman, L. R. (1999, September). Academic work in the twenty-first century: Changing roles and policies. Occasional Paper Series, 99H. Higher Education Division,
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. https://vital.voced.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/ngv:21859/SOURCE2
Collinson, J. A. (2006). Just ‘non-academics’? Research administrators and contested occupational identity. Work, Employment and Society, 20(2), 267-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017006064114
de Jong, S., & del Junco, C. (2024). How do professional staff influence academic knowledge development? A literature review and research agenda. Studies in Higher Education, 49(6), 1042-1065. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2258155
Doyle, L., McCabe, C., Keogh, B., Brady, A., & McCann, M. (2020). An overview of the qualitative descriptive design within nursing research. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(5), 443-455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987119880234
Enders, J., & Naidoo, R. (2022). The rise and work of new professionals in higher education. In Research handbook on academic careers and managing academics (pp. 89-98). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gray, S. (2015). Culture clash or ties that bind? What Australian academics think of professional staff. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(5), 545-557. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1079397
Ito, S., & Watanabe, T. (2020). Multilevel analysis of research management professionals and external funding at universities: Empirical evidence from Japan. Science and Public Policy, 47(6), 747-757. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa074
Kim, H., Sefcik, J. S., & Bradway, C. (2017). Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies: A systematic review. Research in Nursing & Health, 40(1), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21768
Kirkland, J., & Stackhouse, J. (2011). Guarding the gatekeeper: University research managers in a triple helix environment. In Theory and practice of the Triple Helix Model in developing countries (pp. 87-97). Routledge.
Kulakowski, E. (2023). The establishment and history of the international network of research management societies. In The Emerald handbook of research management and administration around the world (pp. 83-95). Emerald Publishing Limited.
LaDonna, K. A., Artino Jr., A. R., & Balmer, D. F. (2021). Beyond the guise of saturation: Rigor and qualitative interview data. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 13(5), 607–611. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-21-00752.1
Macfarlane, B. (2011). The morphing of academic practice: Unbundling and the rise of the para‐academic. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(1), 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2010.00467.x
Mayan, M. J. (2016). Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Routledge.
Poli, S., Oliveira, C., & Zsár, V. (2023). From conceptualisation to action–The quest for understanding attitudes of research managers and administrators in the wider world. In The Emerald handbook of research management and administration around the world (pp. 201-220). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Ross, R. (2017). University research development offices: Perceptions and experiences of research university administrators [Doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University]. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/university-research-development-offices/docview/2050632416/se-2?accountid=11411
Ross, R., Reeves, J., Scarpinato, K., & Pelham, M. (2019). Success factors for university research development offices and activities. Journal of Research Administration, 50(3), 107-124. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1237840.pdf
Ryttberg, M. (2022). Legitimacy dynamics of professional support staff at higher education institutions. Higher Education Policy, 35(1), 218-233. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00206-w
Ryttberg, M., & Geschwind, L. (2017). Professional support staff at higher education institutions in Sweden: Roles and success factors for the job. Tertiary Education and Management, 23, 334-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1322631
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334-340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240x(200008)23:4%3C334::aid-nur9%3E3.0.co;2-g
Santos, J. M., Varela, C., & Kerridge, S. (2021). Professionals at the interface of science: Is there more than meets the eye? Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 25(3), 100-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2021.1881842
Smith, C., Holden, M., Yu, E., & Hanlon, P. (2021). ‘So what do you do?’: Third space professionals navigating a Canadian university context. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43(5), 505-519. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2021.1884513
Smith, D. E., & Griffith, A. I. (2022). Simply institutional ethnography: Creating a sociology for people. University of Toronto Press.
Stoller, A. (2023). Academic labour in the third space. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 34, 19-22. https://ices.library.ubc.ca/index.php/workplace/article/view/186833/185675
Szekeres, J. (2011). Professional staff carve out a new space. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(6), 679-691. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.621193
Torti, J., Hayward, M., Friesen, F., & Lingard, L. (2024). Ghostwriting grants: A critical conversation about the invisible contributions to health professions education research grants. In L. Varpio & A. McLeod (Eds.), A thunderous chorus of silent voices: The invisible work of medical education. University of Toronto Press.
Welch, L., & Brantmeier, N. K. (2021). Examining employee retention and motivation trends in research administration. Journal of Research Administration, 52(2), 70-86. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1325462.pdf
Whitchurch, C. (2008). Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: The emergence of third space professionals in UK higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 377-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00387.x
Whitchurch, C. (2013). Reconstructing identities in higher education: The rise of third space professionals. Routledge.
Whitchurch, C. (2018). Being a higher education professional today: Working in a third space. In C. Bossu & N. Brown (Eds.), Professional and support staff in higher education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1607-3_31-1
Whitchurch, C. (2022, September). From ‘working in third space’ to ‘third space professionals’ [Blog post]. Third Space Perspectives - Exploring Integrated Practice. https://www.thirdspaceperspectives.com/blog/tothirdspaceprofessionals
Whitchurch, C. (2023). Rehabilitating third space professionals in contemporary higher education institutions. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 33, 24-35. https://ices.library.ubc.ca/index.php/workplace/article/view/186839/185674
Whitchurch, C. (2024). From ‘service’to ‘partnership’: Harnessing social capital in support of activity in third space environments. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 46(3), 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2024.2344132
Yang-Yoshihara, M. (n.d.). An emerging profession for doctorate degree holders as Research Managers and Administrators (DRMAs). https://srhe.ac.uk/arc/22/0247.pdf
Yang-Yoshihara, M., Poli, S., & Kerridge, S. (2023). Evolution of professional identity in research management and administration. In The Emerald handbook of research management and administration around the world (pp. 297-308). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Zink, H. R., Hughes, D., & Vanderford, N. L. (2022). Reconfiguring the research administration workforce: A qualitative study explaining the increasingly diverse professional roles in research administration. Journal of Research Administration, 53(2), 119-140. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1362090.pdf