Blog Viewer

Volume LVII, Number 2 |

José M. R. C. A. Santos
CIMO, LA SusTEC, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança,
Campus de Santa Apolónia, 5300 253 Bragança, Portugal

Carolina Varela
International Consortium of Research Staff Associations (iCORSA),
Luxembourg Ville, Luxembourg

Simon Kerridge
Research & Innovation Services,
University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom

Abstract

This study examines the professional identities of research management and administration professionals (RMAs) working at public non-research performing organizations (non-RPOs), an occupational group that has been largely overlooked in previous research. Framed in Bourdieu’s Theory of Distinction, which examines how individuals develop unique professional traits and adapt to their work environments through accumulated experiences and skills, survey data is used to explore key constructs of professional identity, namely learning and working experience, the systematic performance of specific tasks, interactions at work and professional networks, the pursuit of professional development, and self-positioning within research and innovation (R&I) ecosystems. The analyses reveal that RMAs at public non-RPOs generally carry specific traits characteristic of RMAs, emphasizing their expertise in bridging the gap between science and society. The study contributes to the Bourdieusian lens on the influence of social, linguistic, and cultural capital on work habitus (the professional disposition shaped by learning and work experience) and the field’s structure specific to R&I ecosystems. The findings provide valuable insights for professional networks and policymakers seeking to support the professionalization of RMAs.

Keywords: Research Management and Administration; Professional Identity; Non-research Performing Organizations; Bourdieu´s Theory of Distinction

Introduction

Research management and administration (RMA) is a relatively new profession. The National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA) was founded in the USA in 1959, followed by the Society of Research Administrators International (SRA-I) in 1967. The European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (EARMA) was established in 1995, and there are many others. In 2001, the International Network of Research Management Societies (INORMS) was created to bring together these associations (Kulakowski, 2023). RMA has been traditionally associated with supporting research projects at universities (Beasley, 2006). Over time, its focus has expanded to encompass various facets (Agostinho et al., 2020), including research and innovation funding, science communication, science strategy support, knowledge and technology transfer, impact assessment, research project management, laboratory administration, and other areas at the interface of science in all categories of research-performing organizations (RPOs). Moreover, authors such as Santos et al. (2021) proposed formally extending the RMA concept to include the professionals at the interface of science working at non-research performing organizations (non-RPOs), such as research funding and science policymaking agencies.

RMA has struggled to find jurisdiction for its practitioners in most countries. In academic contexts, RMA is often regarded as an area that blends the profiles of managers and academics (i.e., a ‘third space’ or ‘blended professionals’ occupation) (Whitchurch, 2019). This is driven naturally by the ‘vacancy’ of this professional space. However, it triggers adjacent professions to dispute each other’s jurisdiction (such as between ‘post-award’ and ‘project management’ practitioners). According to Abbott (1988), these disputes can be resolved in various ways, such as dividing jurisdiction into interdependent parts, subordinating multiple professions to another, or granting full jurisdiction to one profession. Abbott’s theory explores how professions compete for territory and strive to establish a robust sub-culture, ethical guidelines, a degree of independence, and a knowledge base. For individuals, these professions provide relatively stable structures for identity-building and career development. However, from a managerial perspective, the career paths, autonomy, and jurisdictional boundaries associated with professionalization may be seen as costs that offset the benefits of professional expertise (Verbaan & Cox, 2014). The ‘third space’ is the context within which jurisdictional struggles and ambiguity can occur—roles are ill defined and fluid. The emergence of blended professional roles creates a need to define boundaries and areas of expertise. These disputes, while seemingly destabilizing, are part of the dynamic process through which professions (including emerging ones such as RMA) seek to establish the very sub-culture, ethical guidelines, independence, and knowledge base that eventually provide stable structures for identity-building and career development for their practitioners. The ongoing debate about whether RMA possesses the traits of a profession highlights this very challenge of defining and solidifying its identity within this dynamic environment.

In this context, RMA has been considered an emerging profession by some authors (see e.g. Green & Langley, 2009; Poli, 2017), while others argue that it does not appear to have many traits of a profession (Verbaan & Cox, 2014). This issue has been debated so far mostly with a focus on research managers and administrators (RMAs) at RPOs. In fact, the professional individuality of RMAs working in academic settings has been the subject of an increasing number of academic studies (e.g., Santos, Varela, Fischer, et al., 2024; Yang-Yoshihara et al., 2023; Zsár, 2023). Authors such as Wenneberg (2001), Braun (1998), Schützenmeister (2010), Arnott et al. (2020), and Goldstein and Kearney (2020) refer to the functions of RMA at research funding entities, although only indirectly. To the best of our knowledge, studies gathering empirical data on RMAs at non-RPOs are limited to those of Kerridge and Scott (2018b) and Santos et al. (Santos et al., 2023; Santos, Varela, & Kerridge, 2024; Santos, Varela, Fischer, et al., 2024). Thus, more research on RMAs working at non-RPOs is needed to gather empirical evidence supporting or not RMA as a de facto profession that crosses institutional and national boundaries.

Researchers have explored workplace identity from various angles. They’ve examined how individuals perceive themselves based on their unique capabilities and how their work relationships and membership in larger collectives (such as organizations) contribute to their sense of self. An individual’s professional identity is essentially the self that evolves through a commitment to competent and legitimate professional performance. This development can persist throughout their career (Tan et al., 2017). However, authors such as Paterson et al. (2002) stress that self-perceptions are not sufficient to ensure that professional identity development occurs. Accordingly, Prosek and Hurt (2014) posit that professional identities convey shared norms, rules, values, and symbols within a group. Thus, examining how professional communities collectively interpret their work and surroundings is crucial.

Recently, researchers have increasingly explored strategies of distinction within organizational contexts as a type of ‘class work.’ This involves employees developing a ‘class habitus’ that bestows value and prestige upon their jobs. According to Gray and Kish-Gephart (2013), class work encompasses interpretive processes and interaction rituals that organizational members engage in to navigate cross-class encounters. Essentially, it involves professional groups distinguishing themselves from other workers based on knowledge, interaction patterns, and individual experience. In this context, a particularly useful and widely used theoretical stance is Bourdieu´s Theory of Distinction (1984). In Bourdieu’s perspective, ‘actors’ within specific ‘fields’ employ diverse strategies of distinction. These strategies involve developing behaviors, professional ideals, preferences, and tastes that highlight their advantages within social or organizational contexts. Habitual actions and symbolic possessions serve as crucial status signals and are frequently utilized as dynamic and continuous methods to differentiate oneself from others and achieve social privileges. In this study, Bourdieu’s field analytical approach to science institutions, encompassing the Theory of Distinction (Jorgensen et al., 2014), is used to frame theoretically the professional jurisdiction occupied by RMAs beyond their self-perceptions of professional identity.

Our study seeks to answer the following research question: “Do research managers and administrators based at public non-research performing organizations share a professional jurisdiction with those based at research-performing organizations?”. A deductive, mixed methods approach is used as an exploratory study. Through the lens of Bourdieu’s ‘field’, ‘habitus’, and ‘capital’ concepts, the constructs that embody the RMAs’ traits that establish their professional identity are scrutinized. To this end, empirical data was collected through a survey questionnaire informed by key traits of professional identities gathered from extant literature.

RMAs Working at Non-RPOs

The roles of research managers or administrators working at non-RPOs have seldom been approached in the literature. 

Braun (1998, p. 812) reported that, in funding agencies, administrative roles are often filled by individuals who have scientific education, because these roles require expertise in developing funding procedures and necessitate administrators with strong connections in the scientific community. Additionally, Braun (1998) argued that familiarity with scientists' values, norms, and procedures is crucial for effective administration. Wenneberg (2001) mentioned that RMA tasks can be undertaken by research managers, researchers, university rectors, and staff at research funding agencies and research councils. In particular, the important role of RMAs at non-RPOs is acknowledged: “(…) we need more management to make the scientific system and the science-policy system work together” (Wenneberg, 2001, p. 122). Schützenmeister (2010) analyzed different levels of research management, mentioning those performed at the science funding level. The existence of RMAs outside RPOs is recognized by stating that “(…) research management … is distributed to a large number of more or less independent actors dispersed over different levels of hierarchy, the political system, and within research organizations” (p. 2). 

More recently, Goldstein and Kearney (2020) addressed public funding program managers by debating their risk management role and its connection with the productivity of mission-oriented public research funding. Arnott et al. (2020) also studied funding program managers at public funding agencies. They concluded that expanding a funding agency’s mission and role to promote socially relevant science could necessitate developing the capacity to assist with the intermediary functions that program managers perform. The authors propose enhancing job descriptions and professionalizing program managers to promote the practical impact of the research they support. Although authors such as Arnott et al. (2020) recognized such professionals contributing to the science system and sharing the same functions as those working in higher education institutions (HEIs), they are not considered by Goldstein and Kearney (2020) as part of the RMA profession.

Empirical studies of RMAs at non-RPOs are even more scarce. 

Using the results from the first edition of the Research Administration as a Profession (RAAAP) survey, Kerridge and Scott (2018b) found that approximately 5.8% of the 2,691 respondents to the question about organization type could be identified as working at non-RPOs (including research funding, governmental departments, charities, private companies, and hospitals).

Using content analysis of semi-structured interviews, complemented with survey data,  Santos et al. (2023) explored where RMAs work, regarding the types of organizations and their structures. They found that while RMAs predominantly work within universities and research institutes, they also play a role across the entire R&I ecosystems chain, including non-RPOs. However, these authors stress that institutional cultural barriers within public administration can impede effective communication and professional interactions between RMAs at RPOs and those at non-RPOs. 

Santos, Varela, & Kerridge (2024) provided an overview of the roles, profiles, and functions of RMAs working at non-RPOs, such as science policymakers, research funders, and think tanks. The authors contend that they are inherently part of the broader RMA profession and that their active involvement in this community would benefit them and contribute to the R&I ecosystem as a whole. Additionally, their research indicates that these RMAs show academic, demographic, and professional profiles similar to those working at RPOs, and that they perform a range of roles and functions that align with the classification of RMAs. 

Through thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews, Santos, Varela and Kerridge (2024) explored their professional identity in R&I ecosystems through the lens of 'narrative identities' theory. RMAs were found to have a clear sense of purpose and navigate their careers in a dynamic environment shaped by public management systems and personal motivations. These authors also found that while they recognize their unique expertise, RMAs face identity challenges that bridge academia and other professional domains.

A Bourdieusian Framing of Professional Identity

This study uses the widely acknowledged Bourdieu´s school of thought to theoretically frame the professional space where RMAs work. Bourdieu’s field analytical approach to science institutions is particularly useful in this regard (Jorgensen et al., 2014). His sociological ideas, namely the notions of ‘field’, ‘habitus’, and ‘capital’, are used next to develop the theoretical constructs that will form the basis for discussing the specific professional identity of RMAs at non-RPOs informed by the collected empirical data. 

Although Bourdieu developed his Theory of Distinction to describe the French elite (Wasserman & Berkovich, 2022), many researchers have determined that this framework has greater value and validity, as it offers a detailed critical perspective that is appropriate for class-based societies (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008). For example, in the higher education (HE) area, studies applying Bourdieu’s conceptualization have focused on students who develop cultural capital during their academic studies (e.g., Reay et al., 2010). Also, Bourdieu’s Theory of Distinction has been used, for example, by Wasserman and Berkovich (2022) to investigate how academic librarians have reinvented themselves in the digital era by focusing on aesthetic, cultural, and professional differentiation to create new forms of professional capital. Numerous studies employing Bourdieu's theory of distinction, centered on HE administrators, demonstrate how they gain occupational capital predominantly through their formal understanding of procedures and regulations rather than academic knowledge (Hockey & Allen-Collinson, 2009). However, Wasserman and Berkovich (2022) argue that by upgrading their aesthetic, cultural, and professional occupational capital, HE administrators such as librarians can obtain renewed legitimacy and adapt more swiftly to the increasingly fast changes in this sector.

Bourdieu’s concept of field offers a model for the structural dimensions of practices (Timans et al., 2019). Within fields, individuals occupy different positions based on the disparities in their capital holdings. Capital is a resource that agents use to exert influence within the field. The allocation of capital is a form that is unique to the field and functions as a principle of stratification, distinguishing those who possess greater capital from those who possess less. The set of knowledge and informal skills that agents have developed over time, as described by Bourdieu, is defined as the ‘habitus’. These are not plain preferences, as they are manifested in social class rankings. Thus, workers develop their activity with a habitus that has been molded by their previous socialization, namely in their learning and prior working environments (Huang, 2019). 

The development of expertise in a particular field or subject requires a systematic approach that includes solid foundational knowledge acquired, for example, by attending academic or professional certification courses, and by regular practice, i.e., by consistently applying the acquired knowledge and skills in practical situations (Elvira et al., 2017). In fact, the systematic and ongoing performance of specific tasks is closely associated with forming a professional identity (Knights & Clarke, 2014; Moss et al., 2014). The set of tasks performed provides the basic field structure. As individuals repeatedly engage in the tasks associated with their chosen field, they develop a sense of self-authorship and mastery, which contributes to solidifying their professional identity.

Identity is a phenomenon that emerges within the framework of societal and cultural expectations. The construction of an identity is a consequence of a series of engagements with individuals, language, objects, or aspects linked to a specific sociocultural backdrop. These interactions may be in the form of discourses and practices (Tan et al., 2017). The success in a field is determined by the “overall volume of the capital… and the composition of that capital” (Corsaro & Bourdieu, 1992, p. 231). Social capital, in particular, calls for attention to the relevance of social relationships and, therefore, to the importance of individual interactions that make it more probable for individuals to achieve their objectives. 

Success at work is more likely to benefit those with work habitus that align with the in-place practices. Thus, those whose class habitus is not aligned with the work practices require a reconstruction of their habitus by training (and/or further education) if they are to be successful (Fernández-Kelly, 2008; Huang, 2019). Therefore, (in)formal training and/or further education opportunities represent a key asset for the generation of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984). The habitus functions within a set of socially organized rules, named ‘fields of power’ by Bourdieu, through which power and control are scattered and legitimized (Huhn et al., 1996). Social fields are described as the systemic social interactions of power between those sharing a related set of dispositions but taking different positions within the field. 

Figure 1

Conceptual Framework and Key Constructs for the Formation of a Professional Identity from a Bourdieusian Perspective

In light of the above, to study the professional identity of RMAs at non-RPOs, from a Bourdieusian perspective, a conceptual framework (Figure 1) was developed based on the following theoretical constructs: 1) learning and working experience as defining the habitus and sources of capital (Huang, 2019); 2) the systematic performance of specific tasks in structuring the field (Knights & Clarke, 2014); 3) interactions in the RMA field, including at work and in the context of professional networks, as sources of capital (Tan et al., 2017; Timans et al., 2019); 4) the relevance of professional development to earning capital (Fernández-Kelly, 2008; Huang, 2019); and 5) self-awareness of their positioning within the wider field of R&I ecosystems (Daniel et al., 2003).

Methods 

The methodology adopted was a constructivist, deductive, mixed methods approach, using quantitative and qualitative data collected employing an online survey questionnaire. The survey targeting RMAs working at non-RPOs (herein referred to as the PIoS survey) was developed to collect empirical data on the constructs formulated in Figure 1. Surveys are a widely used method of empirical social research that is employed to gather ideas, knowledge, data, or evaluations of social structures (Gaisch et al., 2019). Nevertheless, as surveys typically assess beliefs rather than actions, they are susceptible to various cognitive and systemic response biases. A combination of structured and open-ended questions was utilized to mitigate these biases. Additionally, all individuals involved in the study possess expertise in the area under investigation and draw upon diverse sources of knowledge (such as tacit, informal, semi-formal, and academic) to provide well-informed responses to all pertinent inquiries. With a small sample size (n = 37), this study was exploratory and could not offer a broad range of insights and analyses.

Participation in the study was voluntary. The online survey, conducted using Qualtrics, was distributed between June 2020 and March 2021. To ensure the questionnaire's validity, the research concepts were carefully defined based on existing literature and sought feedback from experts (Saunders et al., 2009). A pilot group (RMAs from both RPOs and non-RPOs) also tested the questionnaire. Their feedback informed the final questionnaire instrument. 

The questionnaire comprised the following sections: profile, career, tasks and roles in R&I ecosystems, professional interactions and membership of professional networks, and training and professional development. Likert-type scales were used where appropriate, while open-ended questions allowed respondents to provide more detailed information. The survey was distributed to the authors' professional networks, including research funders, innovation agencies, government offices, and through RMA associations. An email invitation with a survey link was sent, followed by reminders to increase participation. SPSS v26 was used to analyze anonymized survey data.

The PIoS survey data was triangulated, namely in what concerns the respondents’ demographic, academic, institutional, and professional profiles, with the subset of data from the three RAAAP surveys relating to RMAs from non-RPOs, namely from its 2016 (RAAAP-1) (Kerridge & Scott, 2018a), 2019 (RAAAP-2) (Kerridge, Ajai-Ajagbe, et al., 2023) and 2022 (RAAAP-3) (Kerridge, Dutta, et al., 2023) iterations. 

Results

Demographic, Institutional, Academic, and Professional Profiles

The demographic information includes the respondents' gender, age range, and country of origin. The institutional profile offers details about the type of institution they work at. The academic profile outlines their highest educational qualification. The professional profile provides insight into the number of years as a research manager or administrator. 

Most of the respondents were between 35 and 54 years old (73%, 63%, 65%, and 81% for the PIoS, RAAAP-1, RAAAP-2 and RAAAP-3 surveys, respectively). Most were employed as RMAs for less than 15 years (59%, 61%, 71%, and 74% for the PIoS, RAAAP-1, RAAAP-2, and RAAAP-3 surveys, respectively). It can be observed that the survey’s respondents are experienced professionals. Therefore, they are considered reliable informants. As for gender distribution, in the PIoS, RAAAP-1, and RAAAP-2 surveys, women averaged 75%, which increased slightly to 79% in the RAAAP-3 survey. The more significant proportion of women in the RMA occupation is consistent with previous reports for RMAs in general (namely at RPOs) (Kerridge & Scott, 2018b). Thus, it can be concluded that the profile of the respondents to these surveys is consistent, namely between the PIoS and the RAAAP survey series.

Figure 2

Country of Origin of Non-RPOs Respondents from the RAAAP and PIoS Surveys 

Figure 2 depicts the country of origin of the RAAAP and PIoS survey respondents. It can be observed that they are from a diverse array of countries. This diversity increases from RAAAP-1 to -2 and -3 (18, 25, and 30 countries, respectively), and the USA predominance decreases. In the PIoS survey, Portuguese, British, and Canadian respondents were the most represented nationalities (35.1%, 13.5%, and 13.5%, respectively). Thus, the RAAAP survey datasets are considered more representative of the global community, whereas the PIoS survey is biased toward the three nationalities mentioned.

The majority of RMAs that responded to the RAAAP surveys work at HEIs and research institutes, followed by a combination of different types of (typically) non-RPOs (5.8%, 6.0%, and 8.0% in RAAAP-1, -2 and -3, respectively). Figure 3 details the organizational settings of the RAAAP survey respondents working at non-RPOs.

Figure 3

RAAAP Respondents from Organizations other than Universities and Research Institutes

The data presented in Figure 3, related to the RAAAP survey, show that typical work settings at non-RPOs include science policymaking and research funding entities, as well as knowledge users and producers. Other types of organizational settings mentioned by RAAAP respondents include temporary organizations (‘programs’, ‘projects’), (freelance) consultants, ‘across’ institutions (e.g., research centers shared by HEIs and non-HEIs), ‘hybrid’ institutions (e.g., combining practice, lecturing and research in the medical area), and others such as intergovernmental organizations and museums. The organization categories used in the PIoS survey do not allow for a direct comparison with the RAAAP survey data. Around half of the respondents (48.6%) worked at research funding organizations. The second most frequent type of institution represented was science policymaking (21.6%), followed by think tanks (13.5%), and other organizations (16.2%). The surveys’ data show that RMAs work at institutions other than RPOs, representing the full set of R&I ecosystem actors. Therefore, the empirical data collected show that RMA pervades many institutional contexts and national boundaries, which is a key characteristic of consistent professional identities (Gomez-Mejia, 1984; Lammers & Garcia, 2009; Mael & Ashforth, 1992).

Learning and Work Experience

The proportion of respondents with a doctorate represented 30%, 32%, 40%, and 44% for the PIoS, RAAAP-1, RAAAP-2, and RAAAP-3 surveys, respectively. The majority of the PIoS and RAAAP respondents have a ‘natural sciences’, ‘business and economics’ or ‘social sciences’ academic background (PIoS: 29.7%, 24.3%, and 18.9%; RAAAP-1: 22.8 %, 20.4 %, and 17.6 %; RAAAP-2: 23.2 %, 16.5 %, and 18.0%; RAAAP-3: 24.6 %, 15.7 %, and 18.8 %). Former ‘managers from outside science’ and ‘scientists/researchers’ represented 29.7% of the PIoS sample each. No equivalent question was posed in the series of RAAAP surveys.

The advantages and disadvantages of RMA profiles originating from academia or management have been briefly addressed by Bertero et al. (2012). The authors argue that these represent complementary perspectives regarding understanding and having knowledge of mechanisms and practicalities to apply to research support. Being a researcher implies a passion for research, critical thinking, comprehension capabilities, problem-analysis ability, a networking attitude, and adaptability to uncertain situations. On the other hand, a management background/experience comes with a good understanding of administration and its rules, accounting systems, budgeting, reporting, university governance, and organization. Bertero et al. (2012) were referring to RMAs at RPOs. The evidence presented herein shows that the same reasoning can be applied to RMAs at non-RPOs.

Schützenmeister (2010) noticed that scientifically trained students were considering RMA as a career option, even though it might not be their top choice. Our findings also support this evidence in the case of RMAs at non-RPOs. Moreover, this evidence emphasizes the important role that professional development activities play for these RMAs to generate cultural capital. On the one hand, those with a scientific background should acquire knowledge (through interaction with colleagues and/or training), e.g., on basic financial concepts, intellectual property, and ethics. On the other hand, managers from outside science ought to learn key concepts about the scientific approach to problems and the HE sector in general in order to be able to team up with and support researchers effectively. 

Systematic Performance of Specific Tasks 

To further understand if these RMA practitioners can articulate their roles as professionals, they were asked (in the PIoS study) to identify their duties based on a predefined list of tasks commonly associated with the RMA practice. The results, summarized in Table 1, are analyzed alongside their opinion on belonging or not to the same professional group as those RMAs working at HEIs and R&D centers. Table 1 shows the frequency with which each of the tasks was selected. Each of the 37 respondents could select from the given options all the tasks they performed. The category ‘Other Activities’ was selected by only three respondents and represented only 1.6% of all selections, which validates the list of tasks presented to the respondents. As a general observation, the enumerated tasks demand specialized knowledge, a key trait of a profession (Adler et al., 2008; Vough, 2012).

Table 1

Professional Identity as a Function of the RMA Tasks Performed

Where over 50% of RMAs at non-RPOs feel a shared identity with the wider RMA community, the following tasks are performed (in decreasing order of importance): ‘Conducting Research’ (only one response), ‘Science Observation’, ‘Advising on Administrative Procedures’, ‘Advising on Funding Opportunities’, ‘Other Activities’, ‘Disseminating Funding Opportunities’, ‘Science Communication and Outreach’, ‘Advising on Science Policy’, ‘Advising on Programs and Projects’, and ‘Liaising with Stakeholders (e.g. RPOs)’. These represent 71.4 % of all the tasks the respondents selected and seem related to more managerial/administrative roles. The identification with RMAs at HEIs and R&D centers is lower than 50% when the following tasks are selected: ‘Definition of Science Policy and Strategy’, ‘Operationalization of Funding Mechanisms’, ‘Definition of Funding Mechanisms’, and ‘Liaising with Funding Agencies’. These seem to be related on the one hand to more strategic roles (“definition of…), and on the other hand to more operational roles (“liaising with…”, “operationalization of…”). 

Thus, it can be observed that those respondents who perform more managerial/administrative roles at non-RPOs feel more strongly that they share a professional identity with the wider RMA community than those who perform more strategic or operational roles. Several factors are thought to contribute to this inference. RMAs with managerial/administrative roles may feel more strongly connected to the broader RMA community due to their similar tasks, professional development opportunities, recognition as experts, emphasis on administrative expertise, and differentiation from research roles. For example, RMAs with managerial/administrative roles often have similar tasks and responsibilities, such as managing budgets, overseeing projects, and providing administrative support to researchers. This similarity can lead to a sense of shared identity among these RMAs, as they can relate to each other's experiences and challenges. In contrast, RMAs with strategic or operational roles may have a broader range of responsibilities and may not have as much exposure to the wider RMA community. This can lead to a more fragmented sense of professional identity, as they may not feel as connected to the shared experiences and challenges of other RMAs.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the high percentages of 'Yes' responses for tasks with very low frequencies are based on a small subset of the sample, itself small, which limits drawing strong generalized conclusions from these particular data points. While these percentages indicate a strong sense of shared identity among the few who perform these tasks, they do not necessarily reflect a widespread sentiment across the entire population of RMAs at non-RPOs, given the limited number of respondents for these specific tasks.

The systematic performance of specific tasks is closely associated with forming a professional identity. These tasks inherently demand specialized knowledge. These are clear examples of shared functional norms and the specialized knowledge base that define RMA professional identity across different organizational contexts. For instance, the commonalities in how RMAs manage budgets or provide administrative support lead to a ‘sense of shared identity’ among those in managerial/administrative roles.

In conclusion, the shared identity seen among non-RPO RMAs in their managerial and administrative duties probably reflects similar roles within RPOs of all sizes, including smaller ones and PUIs (Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions, where research may not be a main institutional driver). The administrative and managerial work of non-RPO RMAs, which fosters a strong sense of common professional identity, likely highlights the similarities present in various RPOs, including smaller RPOs and PUIs.

Professional Interactions

The respondents of the PIoS study were also asked about their individual connections and interpersonal relationships in their work context. Only 6.1% report that interaction with the categorized areas is ‘not applicable’. Twenty-six percent report that they interact ‘continually’ 38.0% ‘often’, and 29.9% ‘seldom’. Thus, these are highly ‘interactive’ roles (64.0% ‘continually’ plus ‘often’). This is attributed to their strategic involvement in multi-stakeholder R&I enterprises, their responsibility for resource management, their role in knowledge mobilization and dissemination, their expertise in policy and regulatory compliance, their dedication to institutional support and advocacy, their communication and stakeholder engagement skills, and their active participation in professional networks.

The areas with which the respondents interact more are ‘science funding’ and ‘science policy’. Most respondents come from these types of organizations (71.1%). This is followed by ‘science strategy’, ‘pre-award’, ‘research’, ‘post-award’, and ‘communication/outreach’, and then by ‘technology transfer’, ‘R&D HR management’ and ‘open science’. Thus, these professionals’ ‘interface’ character is evidenced in the empirical data, as they edge with all the key stages that typically structure R&I ecosystems. The areas they interact with less are those of ‘ethics and responsible research’ and ‘R&D facilities management’. This is attributed to contextual factors related to the organizational structures where the respondents develop their activity that may not include exposure to specific ‘ethics and responsible research’ and ‘R&D facilities management’ units. This ‘interface’ character is a crucial example of a shared professional practice, indicating a common understanding of their role in connecting different parts of the R&I landscape. Their awareness of the importance of these interactions at operational, institutional, and system levels reflects a shared strategic understanding of their function.

RMAs consider these interactions most important in three key contexts: their ‘day-to-day work’, which pertains to the operational level of their functions; the mission of the employer’s organization’, reflecting their contribution at the institutional level; and the running and evolution of R&I ecosystems, underscoring their impact at the broader system level. Conversely, interactions are deemed less important when it comes to the ‘complexity of ethical and open science issues’. This observation is attributed to specific contextual factors within their organizational structures, which may not expose them frequently to dedicated ‘ethics and responsible research’ or ‘R&D facilities management’ units. This consistent prioritization of interactions across operational, institutional, and systemic contexts indicates that these professionals recognize the equal importance of interactions at all these levels. As a result, they interpret their functions as embodying both an ‘administrative/managerial’ dimension, directly related to their daily tasks and operational responsibilities, and a significant ‘strategic’ dimension, as demonstrated by their contributions to institutional missions and the ongoing evolution of R&I ecosystems.

Professional networks often provide specialized training for their members, among other roles (e.g., competencies development, accreditation, contribution to the formal/legal recognition of specific professions, information dissemination, job opportunities promotion, etc.). Therefore, participation in RMA networks could be valuable to these professionals by facilitating and providing interactions with colleagues that perform analogous tasks, for example, at HEIs and R&D centers (thereby building their social capital), and by providing the training needed to improve or update skills and competences required for the job. After NCURA was established in 1959, numerous additional national and regional associations were formed in every region worldwide. These professional associations have been vital for defining competence frameworks and accreditation schemes. For example, in the UK, ARMA established "A Professional Development Framework for Research Managers and Administrators” (ARMA, 2018), and in Africa, SARIMA developed the Professional Competency Framework (SARIMA, 2019). These frameworks serve as explicit examples of the codified shared norms, skills, and values within the RMA profession. Participation in these networks facilitates interactions and training, contributing to social capital and the development of a professional habitus that can be ‘traded’ for recognition and better career conditions.

The PIoS study specifically investigated the participation of Research Management and Administration professionals (RMAs) at non-research performing organizations (non-RPOs) in professional networks. The findings revealed that 41.5% of the respondents were not involved in such networks. The primary reasons cited for this non-involvement were:

1. Lack of awareness of existing networks (57.9%). This suggests a potential communication gap for professional associations aiming to serve all RMAs;
2. Employer-provided networking activities (21.1%);
3. Existing networks not being perceived as relevant (10.5%);
4. Employer-provided training activities (10.5%).

Despite a significant portion not being involved, the study highlighted the perceived value of these networks among respondents. 64.3% and 35.7% respectively, considered interaction with colleagues in professional associations as important or very important. Furthermore, 85.7% of those who do participate in professional networks consider the activities of these networks relevant.

Examples of activities mentioned by respondents include networking, accreditation,
Training, updates on recent developments, web-based platforms for sharing problems and solutions, and events. The reported level of participation in these activities among those involved was: moderate (71.4%), low (21.4%), and high (7.1%). Specific examples of engagement included sharing information, serving on committees and boards, attending and organizing events, drafting factsheets, and participating in training programs as either trainers or attendees. These findings suggest that formal professional networks relevant to RMAs at non-RPOs exist and effectively fulfill crucial networking and training needs for these professionals. Some also act as an accrediting body for professional qualifications, which is considered a prerequisite for a profession's existence (Tyler & Dymock, 2021). Beyond just networking, professional associations play a vital role in the professionalization of RMAs by providing specialized training, fostering competencies development, supporting accreditation, contributing to formal recognition of the profession, disseminating information, and promoting job opportunities. Historically, organizations like ARMA, ARMS, CARA, EARMA, NCURA, NORDP, SARIMA and SRA-I have been instrumental in establishing competence frameworks and accreditation schemes, such as ARMA's "Professional Development Framework" and SARIMA's "Professional Competency Framework". Participation in these networks helps RMAs build social capital by facilitating interactions with colleagues performing similar tasks across different organizational settings, including HEIs and R&D centers. This also contributes to the acquisition of cultural capital through training and networking, which can enhance or update their skills and competencies. This cultural capital, forming their professional habitus, can then be ‘traded’ within the professional context for increased recognition and potentially better career conditions, including salary. Moreover, engaging with professional networks is posited to mitigate ‘mixed identities’ or ‘undefined identities’ that some RMAs at non-RPOs may experience, helping to consolidate their professional identity.

Professional Development

The positioning of the respondents to the PIoS study regarding training and continuous professional development was analyzed considering their respective profiles. Fifty-five point six percent consider RMA training and continuous development activities very important, 22.1% do take part, 7.9% do not find training/professional development activities suited to their current tasks, 6.2% would like to but do not take part, 5.8% implement training/professional development activities as a trainer/lecturer, and 3.0% consider existing training/ professional development activities too expensive. Forty-one point seven percent mention that their employer does not provide training. The awareness of the importance of training seems to be greater for professionals from ‘social sciences’ and ‘business and economics’ than for those with a ‘natural sciences’ background. This is thought to have the contribution of a more probable former contact with research activities in the case of the latter. None of them ‘does not find training activities suited to current tasks’ or ‘would like to but does not take part’.  Professionals with a ‘business and economics’ background are the only ones that ‘would like to but do not take part’. There is a clear distinction between former ‘scientists/researchers’ and ‘managers outside science’, the latter acknowledging more the importance of training activities, and the former implementing and participating (in a more significant percentage) in training actions. Awareness of the importance of training seems more significant for professionals working in research policy than those working in research funders. The latter is the only category that does not find adequate training for current tasks. Those who are involved in professional networks take part more in training than those who are not (the latter think more expressively that training is very important). 

Reasons mentioned by respondents as to why training is important include:

“…training is crucial for the development of our functions. Knowledge is always an asset. With so many changes in programs, regulations, there should be training to train employees.” [Science funding organization, Portugal]

“(To learn about) …collaborative tools and best practices from other regions/countries…” [Science think tank, Spain]

“I think training and continuous professional development are very important but there are no opportunities targeted at my profession, so I would like to take part but don't see a route in.” [Science funding organization, UK]

“…employer rather trains on general working skills (e.g., communication, time management, etc.)” [Science policy-making organization, Ghana]

Notably, one respondent mentioned that “knowledge is always an asset”. This is in line with the Bourdesian perspective on the role of training to acquire cultural capital to be used in the workplace as a strategy for distinction.  

It should be noted that professional training/development on RMA is available, for example, in Africa through the IPRC, in Australasia through ARMS, in Europe through ARMA and EARMA, and in North America by CARA, RACC, SRA-I, NCURA, and NORDP.

Finally, we recognize that although universal principles like professional development and the importance of networking apply to all RMAs, their specific training requirements and priorities can differ based on the institution's context and size (for instance, a large research university compared to a smaller PUI) and whether they are in an RPO or non-RPO setting. While professional development and networking are universally important for RMAs, the focus and priorities of their training will naturally vary depending on their specific institutional environment, including its size and mission.

Positioning of RMAs within the Broader Field of R&I Ecosystems 

The PIoS study tried to assess if these RMAs have a sense of belonging to the R&I ecosystem and contributing to the employer’s mission. That is, what is their level of awareness as players in the specific field corresponding to the R&I ecosystem? Eighty-four percent of the respondents think their contribution to their employer's mission is high. Sixty-one percent and 36.0 % of the respondents consider the contribution of RMA to R&I ecosystems to be high or medium, respectively. Generally, those who think the importance of RMA is high for their employer mission think it is high for R&I ecosystems. It can be deduced that the sample group identifies RMA practitioners as individual agents in the R&I ecosystems field and is aware of their relative position.

Do RMAs at non-RPOs Identify Themselves with the RMA Profession?

The identification of the respondents with the RMA profession was assessed by asking (in the PIoS survey) if the group members recognize themselves as part of the same category as RMA colleagues working at other organizations of the same ecosystem, namely at RPOs. Fifty-three percent identify themselves as in the same category as RMAs at HEIs and R&D centers, 26.7% are unsure, and 20.3% do not. 

The survey respondents effectively articulated their roles as professionals, whether or not they consider that they belong to the same professional group as those RMAs working at HEIs and R&D centers, which is evidence of a high professional identity (Eason et al., 2018):

“Simply, we all want to facilitate high-quality research.” [R&D infrastructure provider, USA]

“In the innovation system we are as important professionals as those who work in higher institutions and in research and development centers.” [Science funding organization, Portugal]

“Even if I work in a governmental policy-making body, the goals are fully aligned with the RMAs in a regional innovation ecosystem. There are some differences in the roles and competencies, but a common vision and approach.” [Science policy-making organization, Spain]

These directly reflect a core shared values, status and importance, and exemplify how shared vision and approach transcend specific roles and organizational contexts, despite jurisdictional nuances. The responses also reveal challenges related to ‘organizational cultures that lead to undesirable communication barriers’, which can impact the perception of shared identity and highlight the need for greater clarity on commonalities.

The reasons why respondents consider they belong to the same professional group as those RMAs working at HEI and R&D centers, but in different ‘categories’, are varied, for example:

“Yes, we are similar to those in roles in HEIs but there are differences in how we need to interact with the political and government drivers, so we aren't in exactly the same category.” [Science funding organization, UK]

“Senior positions in funding organizations and universities are like two sides of the same coin - dealing with the same issues, but from different perspectives. But particular capabilities and cultural adaptability are required to move between the two. The constraints of government organizations can be tough to adjust to for someone whose career has been in academia. And management approaches acquired in government often do not work in academia.” [Science funding organization, Canada]

“My general duties and objectives align well with the objectives of research development/support colleagues at HEIs. Aiming to support the academic community in undertaking research. A slight difference, however, is that my role is to create and design these funding mechanisms rather than focus on applying or managing grants, a key feature of RMAs. I would say that the profession within funding agencies and HEIs or R&D centers is complementary and, in a sense, inter-reliant.” [Science policy making and funding organization, UK]

Those respondents who do not consider they belong to the same professional group as those RMAs working at HEIs and R&D centers also indicate a variety of reasons, e.g.:

“In government, you are acting for the elected representatives to implement policy and set in place schemes and initiatives. Within R&D institutions, you are getting on with the research itself or supporting that research to be funded and happen. So, they are different zones of influence, and very real barriers in some instances to open dialogue between the two. In my view, these barriers have been allowed to get in the way of the collaborations and conversations that can and should happen. Not talking is an 'easy fix' to the risk and conflict issues that can arise.” [Science think tank, Australia]

“My responsibilities also include contribution to public policies, definition of research priorities, managing public consultations, data analysis, synergies between programs.” [Science funding organization, Portugal]

This empirical evidence shows that although most respondents to the PIoS study identify themselves with an RMA profession, sharing similar tasks and a common mission, significant uncertainty can be attributed to a focus of (public) non-RPOs on public policies and priorities. Other aspects mentioned relate mainly to organizational cultures that lead to undesirable communication barriers, confirming the findings of Santos et al. (2023). It is posited that identity uncertainty could be a significant contributor to the lack of communication channels with RMAs at RPOs. 

Discussion

Bourdieu argued that “…it is often the state of relations of force between the players that defines the structure of the field” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 99). In the case of RMAs, it is posited that the variety of capital represented, for example, by a science-related background, provides complementary capital that advantageously positions these ‘players’ in the R&I arena. In fact, the field under consideration values particular dispositions over others, such as ‘speaking the language of science’, and these become deeply ingrained in the habitus and can be converted into various forms of capital by RMAs. In particular, in academic settings, despite the changes of power that originated from the new public management movement (Hood, 1991), scholars still exert a strong position of socially accepted force upon the system. Thus, RMAs originating from academic settings may hold significant capital that allows them to affirm their professional space and adopt a position of power that values their role in the field. If RMAs possess scientific competencies, these can be used as a form of capital that can be exchanged for success in the field as they have a strategic ‘feel for the game’ (Jenkins et al., 1993). Naturally, this causes an imbalance of power, and other key players, namely the researchers, tend to use their capital to exert force and bring the system to a new equilibrium. This can be exemplified by the ongoing discussion on who should be ultimately accountable for R&I projects in academic settings: the project manager or the principal investigator (Cassanelli et al., 2017). 

These results also illustrate the existence in the RMA field of relevant interactions with the people, language, artifacts, or elements associated with the particular socio-culture of R&I. This is key for developing specific professional identities (Tan et al., 2017). In the case of RMAs who are former scientists, from a Bourdieusian perspective, the transference of the habitus that former researchers have developed through their interactions with scientists (linguistic capital) enables them to engage in the field of R&I ecosystems. This habitus is recognized and validated by the practices within R&I activities, thus positioning these RMAs as successful players. They have diverse advantages as they reenter the R&I field; their capital earns an improved reputation and an ‘easier’ position in the field. This enables these RMAs to exchange aspects of their habitus for the recompenses of the field so that their culture becomes a type of capital cherished within that field.

Overall, the empirical data shows that a systematic performance of certain tasks is reported, which is associated with the existence of a specific professional identity (Knights & Clarke, 2014). A clear required degree of expertise is also shown, which further positions these RMA practitioners as professionals (Tyler et al., 2021). Through the lens of Bourdieu´s theory of distinction, the tasks identified in Table 1 serve as the fundamental field within the R&I realm, supporting the cementing of their professional identity. 

The reduced sense of shared identity in strategic and operational duties, such as creating policy and funding rules, points to a unique and fundamental role for non-RPO RMAs that isn't typically a main responsibility for RMAs within RPOs, no matter their size. This difference is vital to establishing their distinct "professional jurisdiction." The unique strategic and operational responsibilities of non-RPO RMAs, like setting science policy or defining funding methods, set them apart from RMAs in RPOs of any scale and create a separate but complementary professional area.

In the social field defined by the R&I endeavor, a variety of parties (researchers, students, companies, policymakers, science diplomats, etc.) interact, and this originates the acknowledged social practices that epitomize the wider field (the R&I ecosystem). How the social practices (interpreted herein as the roles each actor of the R&I ecosystem performs) are then made more concrete is defined by the equilibrium among the distributed social capital that groups of individuals have (Daniel et al., 2003). Tasks such as defining science policies and funding instruments, providing support services and managing R&I project proposals, executing R&I initiatives, and assessing their effectiveness with regard to impact on society, effectively enforce structure upon those participating in the wider R&I field.

The empirical data shows the respondents are aware of the importance of interactions at all levels: operational, institutional, and system (equally). So, they interpret their function(s) at the ‘administrative/managerial’ dimension and at a ‘strategic’ dimension (as expressed in the institutional and system levels). Also, the empirical data show that these RMAs are concerned with raising ‘social capital’ through interactions that can benefit their relative position in the field (Bourdieu, 1991), in this case, R&I ecosystems.

Usually, the members of a professional class are engaged in formal professional networks that, e.g., promote the sharing of best practices and work as an accrediting body for professional qualifications and quality of service. The skills and knowledge sharing that form the habitus RMAs acquire through networking promoted by RMA (in)formal associations contribute to their occupational capital. This defines the way they approach their current working environment. The habitus is actually a form of ‘cultural capital’ that can be ‘traded’ for other goods within the economy of the working context. For RMAs, this could be, for example, increased recognition and better career conditions such as salary commensurate to the roles and tasks performed. 

In summary, Bourdieu´s Theory of Distinction is shown to adequately frame the gathered empirical evidence and supports the existence of a specific jurisdiction for the RMA profession that transcends organizational boundaries (namely RPOs vs. non-RPOs).

Conclusions

An identity crisis of RMAs at non-RPOs is not evident from the empirical data gathered. Generally, these practitioners consider themselves part of the wider RMA profession, although ‘mixed identities’ or ‘undefined identities’ exist. These are posited to be mitigated when these practitioners join professional networks in the RMA area and interact with their peers. Compared to RMAs at RPOs, a shared mission in R&I ecosystems can be identified, although driven by a public policy perspective in the case of non-RPOs.

From a Bourdieusian perspective, the empirical data show that the RMA field results from the active position-taking of its players. Those RMAs at non-RPOs can be seen as expressions of the struggles to define their authority and roles in R&I ecosystems. The potential benefits that arise from being recognized by other individuals (e.g., RMAs at RPOs and researchers) as having expertise in these subjects consist of an enhanced level of independence as professionals operating within a sphere between general administrative personnel and scholars. Consequently, this leads to an elevated status within the social-scientific domain.

The empirical data evidence that RMAs at non-RPOs build social capital through interactions at their workplaces and professional networks. For those with a science background, this acts as linguistic capital, facilitating their positioning in the research endeavor field. Also, these professionals hold a significant cultural capital that stems from skills and knowledge acquired from thematic networks, specific training, and past professional experiences. These form an identifiable habitus that distinguishes these professionals from other players in the field of R&I, such as researchers.

Key professional identity traits of RMAs at non-RPOs worldwide are evidenced by the empirical data collected using the RAAAP and PIoS surveys. Namely: a) transcendence of institutional contexts and national boundaries; b) specific expertise in RMA topics; c) systematic performance of specific tasks; d) clear articulation of their roles as professionals; e) interactions with people, processes, and practices associated with the RMA particular socio-culture; and f) membership of formal RMA professional networks that provide training and accreditation for professional qualifications. 
Thus, it is posited that RMAs working at non-RPOs should be acknowledged as an intrinsic part of the wider RMA community, and their involvement in professional networks should be promoted. This is considered essential to consolidate and develop their professional identity and, ultimately, to fulfill the mission of these professionals in the context of R&I systems. 

Limitations of the PIoS study include a narrow sample of survey respondents regarding the potential total universe and a bias towards Portuguese, British, and Canadian nationalities. Thus, care should be taken when drawing conclusions from the quantitative data. However, the authors were able to include subjects of different roles representing non-RPOs, and it is believed that the qualitative responses support our observations. Also, the general demographic, institutional, academic, and professional profiles are broadly consistent with the RAAAP surveys, suggesting that the sample was representative of the RMA population. Future research could focus on the differences and similarities of working conditions of RMAs at both RPOs and non-RPOs, including interviews with employers/coordinators to understand better if the working context informs the professional self-identity of these professionals. Future research could also investigate more deeply how factors other than the RPO/non-RPO classification, like the size or specific mission of an institution (such as a smaller PUI), affect the professional identity, responsibilities, and training needs of RMAs. This would expand on our current study's findings, which established a foundation by concentrating on the distinct and less-studied non-RPO group. We suggest a more detailed examination of how institutional traits beyond the RPO/non-RPO divide—like size, mission, or internal complexity—shape an RMA's identity, tasks, and development needs. This could be achieved by conducting a more detailed analysis of available RAAAP data, or more directly by creating future surveys that incorporate these specific distinctions.

Authors' Note

José M. R. C. A. Santos: This work was supported by national funds through FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC): CIMO UID/00690/2025 (10.54499/UID/00690/2025) and UID/PRR/00690/2025 (10.54499/UID/PRR/00690/2025); SusTEC, LA/P/0007/2020 (DOI: 10.54499/LA/P/0007/2020).

Author Contributions

José Santos:   0000-0003-2103-4085   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Writing –original draft preparation, Writing – review & editing.
Carolina Varela:   0000-0002-4804-2950   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.
Simon Kerridge:   0000-0003-4094-3719   Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Project administration, Validation, Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

José M. R. C. A. Santos
CIMO, LA SusTEC,
Instituto Politécnico de Bragança,
Campus de Santa Apolónia,
5300 253 Bragança, Portugal

Carolina Varela
International Consortium of Research Staff Associations (iCORSA),
Luxembourg Ville, Luxembourg

Simon Kerridge
Research & Innovation Services,
University of Kent,
Canterbury, United Kingdom

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to José M. R. C. A. Santos, Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO), Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, 5300-253 Bragança, Portugal. josesantos@ipb.pt

References