Creating a research group ‘Charter’

By Dr Kay Guccione, Head of Research Culture and Researcher Development and Dr Rhoda Stefanatos, Researcher Development Specialist for Research Staff.

With increasing numbers of conversations about the ‘culture’ of a research group, and of the research workplace in general, there have been a number of emergences of the idea of a team charter, or lab manual, with some in ardent support, and others wondering why we’d need such a document. A Charter is, in the traditional sense: “a formal statement of the rights of a country’s people, or of an organization or a particular social group, that is agreed by or demanded from a ruler or government”. Research Group Charters, with their origins stemming from the ideas of group learning contracts, supervisory agreements, and team ground rule setting are intended simply to clarify expectations, standards, rights, and responsibilities. To reveal the hidden or implicit rules of academic life in your team. To create deliberate awareness and consciousness about things that are usually found out by chance. Throughout this post we use ‘Team’ or ‘Group’, and this applies even if you are currently only a team of two.

Why bother?

Starting life in a new group or workplace is exciting. At the same time, it places the newbie in a position of ‘not knowing’, which is a vulnerable place, requiring them to manage transitioning to a new setting, new organisation, new team, new project, new boss, perhaps at a new level of responsibility, new city, new country even. Being able to comfortably admit ‘not knowing’ to a new boss or team requires a certain level of confidence, experience and emotional maturity. We know that academia, relying on hierarchical management structures and high competition, has not traditionally set junior team members up to see themselves as our peers and colleagues, able to comfortably communicate what they don’t know. Yet, persisting in a state of unresolved uncertainty about how to interact with you, impress you, anticipate your needs, and maintain face, is an anxious and wearying place to spend a lot of time.

We, as part of a team that interacts with tens of thousands of researchers at Glasgow, across Scotland, and globally, hear stories from frustrated and disappointed researchers, often those near the end of their time in post. Their experience might not represent that of every researcher, but it does represent a keenly felt negative familiarity with persisting in a high level of uncertainty for an extended period. To illustrate, we share a comment from a researcher, which exemplifies this:

“If you can discern any patterns about how decisions are made in our group, I’d be very surprised. Some are getting extensions, some not. Who’s getting picked for conferences, always the favourites, those on the projects she feels will be able to attract more funding. There’s information on the web saying we get 10 days development, but it’s never been mentioned in our group – do we just go, or ask permission? I want to move forward as a researcher but the knowledge of how to work at Lecturer level is all tightly guarded by her.” (Postdoc, 2017)

Researchers in this position are usually fairly angry, and they express some common regrets about their time in research. They may feel they wasted time trying to find things out that could have been shared. Or that they had their time wasted by being left to try to piece information together. They may regret that they weren’t as productive as they might have been and aren’t ready for the next step. They often report that it’s ‘out of character’ for them to feel so adrift, within one long and confusing experience. They speak of making mistakes with consequences for the project, and misunderstandings and conflict borne of partial information.

Maintaining an uncertain vibe, reflects on you

As well as being stressful, persisting in an uncertain and insecure mode also affects working relationships within your team. According to a large-scale review of the available research on trust, ‘predictability’ (knowing what to expect, knowing where you stand, knowing how others will interact with you) is a major facet of trust (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006). Imagining that we all want to be trusted by our teams, a set of guidelines and expectations, as laid out in a manual, or charter, or [insert your preferred name] can inject some predictability and trust back into the precarious and uncertain experience.

Consider that in addition to eroding trust in you as a leader, leaving your team in a persistent state of uncertainty will waste their time. It will demotivate them, leave them wanting for ownership of their research, and overwhelm them, all of which lead to reduced performance, poorer quality research, fewer outputs, and unfulfilled academic careers.

What can go in to such a document?

The short answer is, whatever you like. What’s important to you, your team, your discipline, and your School? What did you struggle to find out? What do you always have to explain to everyone? What are the common mistakes and FAQs?

Here are some things that we think most commonly cause uncertainty and can either build or undermine a positive research culture for your team:

Interpersonal behaviour: “The culture of any organization is shaped by the worst behavior the Leader is willing to tolerate.” (Gruenert and Whitaker, 2015).This section of your Charter might cover the basics of how people speak to each other, react to each other and interact at work. We have put this section up front because the success of any further agreement or charter relies on pinning down the basics of acceptable personal behaviour. This encompasses factors such as language, personal integrity, inclusivity, conflict resolution, and the team’s commitment to collaboration and collegiality. How will you look out for each other, and set standards of care and support? Here’s an example of a behavioural code of practice, one that we use as the Research Services Directorate, that may give you a starting point for some of the above.

Your supervisory/manager relationship: This section could cover how you will manage your team, and the commitment you make to them, to manage them well. Discussing your mutual responsibilities and expectations – and putting them into writing (in the words of our colleague Dr Joanna Royle) is a kindness that sets researchers up for success. Also for consideration might be, who is the wider ‘team’ that you can broker introductions to: how can you support researchers to find a mentor? Who are their allies in the discipline, in the university, and key professional services experts they need to know? We have written about such a ‘team approach’ previously if you’d like more detail.

Project parameters: Who has a stake in the project’s success? The researcher and Supervisor/PI for certain, but also likely the funder, the School and the University to different extents. Link your team into the bigger picture. What are the project timelinesand milestones, if you work backwards from the outputs you want to create. And indeed are you aligned on what outputs you and your team expect? Who takes the lead on delivery, and who on key decisions? What are the standards of academic rigour and integrity you will uphold? Who needs to give permission, who needs to be consulted, and who needs to be kept informed of progress. Who gets credit on outputs, and why? Who funds conferences and travel? With everything to do, how do you achieve a good balance of work life and personal life, and how do you maintain wellbeing through the inevitable setbacks?

Careers: Don’t forget to address this one and let your researchers assume you to be another unsupportive boss. How will you support and enable their career and leadership development? As well as research specific training, how will you support them to gain fundamental-for-2024 workplace skills such as good communication, collaboration and teamworking, and leadership. Of course, career development is not all about going on development courses. What hidden academic work can you lift the veil on and invite them into? Perhaps peer review, grant writing and review, lecture design, module leadership, what is meant by research impact and engagement, what it means to give a keynote, what REF is, how School committees work? How can you mentor and support them to take steps into this type of learning?

The process of (co-)creation

Look back at the definition of a charter above… ‘agreed by or demanded from a ruler or government…’ If this gave you cause for concern about it being a one-way dictatorial approach, you aren’t the only one. How can you work together to co-create your manual, charter, code or guide? Demonstrating to your team how to lead a collaborative, collegial, culture in practice, by going through the process as a consultative two-way discussion, will be more powerful than just writing down that you expect them to work collaboratively. And as with all good charters and codes, keep them live and revisit and adjust parts that don’t work or that have unintended outcomes. Fluidity, and evolution of the first iteration, is key.

One final note from us: another meaning of ‘Charter’ is “a flight by an aircraft that has been rented for a special use.” As metaphors for research projects go, one of moving at speed, though space and time, with a bunch of people, to an exciting destination, is fairly good. And probably one which would benefit from some expectation setting.