Research Skills: Influence and Leadership
Influence and Leadership skills required of excellent PhD or doctoral students
Cloud created by:
12 November 2010
An excellent researcher at doctoral or PhD level:
- Engages in debate and invites challenge.
- Develops awareness of need to gain support.
- Recognises implications of own research for real life contexts.
- Learns of the value to academia of engaging in dialogue with users to achieve influence and impact.
Looking ahead, a doctoral student can aim to become an excellent early-career researcher who:
- Influences and leads less experienced researchers and students.
- Listens actively and communicates confidently. Presents a convincing case.
- Demonstrates link between own research and real world affairs.
- Engages with stakeholders and users of research to extend influence and impact of research within and beyond academia.
Note: These skills are identified in the UK Researcher Development Framework – where they appear as D1.6 Working with Others: Influence and Leadership
Comment 1 by Will Pollard
5:38pm 21 August 2012
I have added a link to an article by Bronwen Rees about Crucible Research. Previously there was a paper for the second Management Theory at Work conference. The approach could work with any form of organisation.
Comment 2 by Will Pollard
5:41pm 23 August 2012
I sent a copy of the Chapter about Crucible Research to John Burgoyne and he has sent me the comments below. See also the video on "State of Salvation?" in Management Theory at Work 3 http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/6043
John Burgoyne comments on Bronwen chapter 23rd August 2012
1. Who had called for innovative approaches to business education, not that I disbelieve it? Perhaps the Hamel quote does it, is he the only one?
2. I’m not sure how the Shambhala warrior bit maps onto our current situation.
3. Are we told what ‘crucible research’ is anywhere?
4. Where does the definition of organisation come from? Not that I disagree with it.
5. Does she argree with Fucault? I suspect she does, so do I. He argues that good can only be done with power, as well as bad, I agree. Does she acknowledge this?
6. Is she saying that ‘competency based systems’ are bad in themselves, or only bad if done wrongly? I have some doubts if it can work for leadership, since defining leadership competencies is, arguably, itself a takeover bid (which HR often gets up to) for leadership.
7. ‘Buddhism does not historically offer a social critique since its main objective is the relief of individual suffering through enlightenment’, does this not, in itself, imply a critique?
8. Does she like the ‘post-modern mindset’ that she mentions, I don’t, too ‘anything goes’ relativistic.
9. I can see that the Bhudist position fits with the post-modern ‘decentering’ of self, but you don’t have to buy into the rest of the post-modern package with this.
10. Is the Bhudist form or ‘mindfullness’ sufficiently context aware? It would need to be to do the job.
11. There is more said on ‘crucible research’, but as far as I can see it is not positioned in the normal methodological/meta-theoretical/philosophical debate: positivism, extreme social constructionism or critical realism (right answer! Ask me more about why),
email email@example.com for publications on this.
12. I agree that action research is good, but not to the exclusion of others.
13. I’m not sure how she gets to an ethical position, email me as above for my approach.
14. Does she mean philosophical or psychological phenomenology? The former is anti-dualist (in the objective/subjective sense. The latter is the study of subjective experience. I can work with both, though the former is perhaps more interesting and useful. And where does she stand on ‘transcendentalism’? There is, at the end of the day, just one reality, which may not be directly accessible. I suspect she would like this. Fits with philosophical pragmatism (Dewey, Pierce and Suanders), ask for refs and docs as above. One can also say reality is God, as in pantheism, which is the position I take. Ditto refs and docs..
15. I like the case examples, but would like to read more on how the methodological position translates into the method in these accounts, and what unique value this adds.
16. We may like distributed leadership and the like, but why is there so much of the ‘heroic’ opposite still around, and no sign of it going away? Email as above for stuff on the ‘blended leadership’ synthesis.