(Episode 107) Exploring Pracademia: Bridging the Gap Between Academic Rigour and Practical Impact

Intro: 00:00:00

Welcome to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast, where in every episode, we explore what is research culture and what should it be? You'll hear thoughts and opinions from a range of contributors to help you change research culture into what you want it to be.

Ged Hall: 00:00:24

Welcome. My name is Ged Hall and I'm an Academic Development Consultant for Research Impact at the University of Leeds.

All of the episodes I contribute to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast focus on some aspects of Research Impact and they're all available via a playlist. Which is in the show notes today. I'm really excited to pick up on some really interesting conversations I've had over the last couple of years with my three guests.

s an opinion piece, it's only: 1500

Helen Hughes 00:01:44

Hi, yeah, thank you. I'm really excited to talk about this. It's something I'm really passionate about. So I'm Helen Hughes, I'm Associate Professor in the Business School, as you mentioned. I'm also an organisational, well, Chartered Psychologist. And I'm particularly interested really in all kinds of problems that put sort of humans at the heart of design.

And so I'm very interested in sort of how human behaviours are both Um, I think that it's really important to understand how processes are affected and affect systems and technologies, processes, people and how sometimes they can have unintended as well as intended consequences as we sort of make design choices.

And I work with a range of organisations throughout my career. I won't name all here, but I'm really passionate about that. I very much see being an academic psychologist as something that has to exist in practice. It's always felt to me that you can't say you're an organisational psychologist if you don't work with organisations in the same way that you can't say, you know, you're a child psychologist, but I don't speak to any children, and it just seems to me a natural, a very obvious thing to work in, you know, in combination with practice and industry.

Ged Hall: 00:02:55

Brilliant. Thanks, Helen. Jill, tell the listeners a little bit about you and your research interests.

Jill Dickinson: 00:03:04

Thank you very much for that, Ged. So yeah, really looking forward to today's discussions. I was a solicitor for about 10 years before I moved into academia. Um, I specialised in commercial property, so advising clients on their portfolio management, but one of the best bits of the job was supervising trainee solicitors and supporting them with their career development.

So that inspired my move into academia and I've not looked back since. Um, so yeah, really enjoy supporting others with navigating career transitions and then their development from there. In terms of research interests, they centre around, um, professional development and placemaking, and recent projects have focused on pracademia and placemaking and the intersection between them.

Um, so how we can develop our teaching and learning spaces to best support things like sense of belonging and that kind of thing. So that's me.

Ged Hall: 00:04:01

Brilliant. And finally, David, why didn't you tell, uh, say hi to the listeners and tell them a little bit about you?

David Loseby: 00:04:07

Yep. Thank you, Ged. Um, again, you know, um, my career is probably more centered around, um, the practitioner part of my early, early career or early career.

He says, um, that's going back quite away actually, but, um, the, my career has sort of, um, predominantly sort of been, um, across a number of corporate organisations, um, different companies like Rolls Royce, GlaxoSmithKline, Barclays Bank, that sort of thing. Um, but I've also worked in the, in the public sector, um, but, uh, long realised after a number of sort of rather sort of strange board meetings where presenting data sets and facts that I realised that actually decisions were more based around, um, human emotions and behaviours and all sorts of other wonderful things that, that we have as human beings, um, which then started my journey in terms of behavioural science.

So my research is predominantly around behavioural science in terms of procurement and supply chain management. Um, Something that I've been passionate about for quite a number of years, uh, and thankfully, it seems to be gaining a lot more momentum these days. So, um, my background, my professional background, um, has, um, been, uh, very much across a number of disciplines, but I'm a Chartered Fellow of the Institute, Chartered Institute of Purchasing Supply.

I'm a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute. Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and also a Fellow of the Association of Project Management, and a Fellow of the Institute of Collaborative Working. So, as you can see, it's quite an eclectic mix of different disciplines, uh, but I guess that's probably what's drawn me into, um, the whole discourse around pracademia.

In other words, I, I identify myself as a pracademic. I'm not a pure academic, and I'm not a pure practitioner, and I think that's where the excitement for me, really. takes place, and hence the reason why I'm like Helen, Jill, and Ged, very passionate about this subject.

Ged Hall: 00:06:01

Brilliant. Thanks, David. Now, we've mentioned that, uh, that word, and obviously it's in the title of our article, Pracademia, um, and we've had some really interesting debates about that.

But Jill, I'm going to come to you initially because it'll be just useful to be academic for a while and kind of say, what do we mean by pracademia?

Jill Dickinson: 00:06:21

Absolutely. Pracademia, it's all in a word, isn't it? For sure. People seem to either love or hate the term. Um, so essentially what it comprises though, are people like, um, you know, ourselves who've got dual experience of both practitioner and academic career roles.

Um, so they might be a lawyer like me, um, or they might have been involved in other disciplines and then made that career transition to work in academia. So they might have made a full time transition like I have, um, but also academics might still have a foot in both camps. So in the discipline of law, they might still work part time as a solicitor, but they might also teach for university as well.

Um, in terms of myself. I made this career transition, as I mentioned earlier, from working in the law firm to taking up a role within HE quite some time ago now, many years ago, but my practitioner roots are really important to me. And maybe as David was saying there, you know, when I introduce myself, I say that I'm a Reader of Law at Leeds Beckett, but I also find myself quickly adding that I used to be a solicitor.

So yeah, really identify as a pracademic.

Ged Hall: 00:07:31

Yeah, brilliant. Helen, I'm going to come to you. How does that situate with your kind of personal identity in terms of what your career is?

Helen Hughes: 00:07:40

Yeah, it's, it's always a really trick. I know we've had many discussions around how I feel about pracademia and it's, it's, it's.

It's something I, I, I very much identify with sitting along this, this scale somehow between academia and, and practice. I guess I feel most comfortable after nearly 20 years in academia as calling myself an academic, but I do remember it took me a really, really long time to change my job title on any business cards or anything, because that idea that I'm a Chartered Occupational Psychologist has always been really, really.

important to me as well. And I actually went down the route of pursuing a chartership in practice before I moved to academia quite early on in my career. So again, that practice focus, the work, you know, my PhD was sponsored by Rolls Royce as an organisation. I've worked in practice and everything I do, I always think about, well, what does this mean?

And how valid are my research questions if an organisation doesn't think this is a problem? And so, so very much. I would put myself, if you imagine a sort of scale of, you know, practice and practice on one end and academia on the other, I very much feel I fit somewhere in the middle. And, and I guess that the term pracademia, I know you started off by saying love it or hate it, and it's always been a really difficult term to me because I've sat in meetings, um, you know, I'm not meaning particularly within the University of Leeds, I'm meaning within, you know, with academic colleagues, where, you know, pracademia can be seen as, well, you're a second rate academic or you're a, you know, and actually I don't believe that for a second, but You can find yourself a bit like, you know, how do I, how do I demonstrate my value through this term?

And as David says, I think through writing this article and so on with you guys, you know, it becomes much more exciting, actually, that this is possibilities. This is actually how we can add value, how we can sort of really cement impact. And so increasingly I feel much more positive about that. But I think there is a journey for others maybe to go on to get to that part as well.

Ged Hall: 00:09:43

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's interesting, isn't it? The way you could argue that those statements in those meetings are, um, coming back to David's point, not based on data and facts, they're based on emotional reactions to the term, aren't they?

Helen Hughes: 00:10:00

Absolutely. And I think just to add on that, I mean, David sort of said, you know, straight off that, you you feel.

very passionately about using the term that you're a pracademic and that's just Jill and I've spoken and actually that sort of pride that you have in that is really catching, you know, it's really, um, and sort of makes you actually, yeah, this is not, this is something to be proud of, that you have those skills that you can transcend different audiences.

And But yeah, I do think within academia there is, there is, you know, still work to do to get some people to that point.

Ged Hall: 00:10:37

Yeah, David, I'm going to come to you in terms of, you know, you wear your pracademic, uh, pride on your sleeve, you know, it's a big badge on the, on the front of you. So how, how does that feel in the, you know, in academia, you know, your, You are at the Business School at Leeds, you're also, um, you're also doing some work at UEA, University of East Anglia as well.

So how do, how does that kind of pride situate and get reacted to, I guess from, from other people in the, in the community?

David Loseby: 00:11:06

It's, it's quite interesting because I think it's, it's, I use the expression it's a bit, Marmite I think is the, is the expression that I would use. And it's interesting a number of the professors at, at UEA and, and at, at Leeds and at Nottingham actually, where I, I do some stuff, um.

Those that know you say, Crikey, you know, you can add so much more to delivering our MS MBAs and MScs and stuff like that, because you know what the feedback that we get is that you can bring some of this theory to life. You can actually say this is how it works in practice and give examples and illustrate it with real sort of.

Uh, personal experiences of having gone through it. And so I do think that that, um, there, there is a recognition, but I think also there is still a degree of, in fact, somebody used the term academic snobbery. So I'm going to put it out there. Um, it's. And it's, it's, it's interesting that, that people still recognise that, but also it's, it's still a recognition sometimes that, as Helen said, you know, if, if you identify as having practitioner roots or a pracademic, um, you're not, you're not a, you know, first rate, first class, five star academic sort of thing.

In other words, you're. You're not quite sort of the sort of the pedigree model, if you like. Um, I find that quite interesting, quite curious at the same time. But I think that also then comes back to my area of behavioural science in terms of how then people see that. And, you know, you could interpret that in a number of ways in terms of, um, you know, some people see that as potentially, um, you know, uh, a challenge because it could be something that they can't assimilate or will never ever.

Fully be able to embrace or, or, um, engage in, um, and, you know, there's a thing in behavioural science called the IKEA effect, which is not invented here. Um, you know, all sorts of things like that. And I mean, there's 206 cognitive biases that we've calculated so far. So there's a lots of those that sort of those buttons that get pressed in this space, um, along with the big five personality traits and all that wonderful stuff.

Um, and so what you see is, is, is quite a sort of, um, A response in a sense, but it's a bit like, um, you know, identifying as a particular culture or a particular, you know, religion, gender, whatever you like to say, or put forward, and there'll always be the people that identify with it and those that vehemently don't.

And so I think Pracademics is, is sort of in that camp really in a way, and I think that, um, um, you know, whether we like it or not, I think it's a bit like many things, I mean, you know, we, we, we've talked about, um, many things that have taken place in terms of the innovation in the workplace and in academia, and things that we couldn't have conceived 25, 30 years ago, um, I mean, I'm old enough because I've got a sufficient number of gray here is to remember that the first mobile phones were a brick.

Uh, and you actually carried it like a car battery with a phone strapped on the top. Um, you know, ask somebody to carry one of those around now. Um, and they would laugh at you and say, you, you, you did that, you know, um, uh, in comparison to the modern day iPhone, you know, it's a, it's a world apart. Um, and so.

I think this is an evolutionary journey and I think I guess in some ways we're sort of, we're some of the sort of the early pilgrims in a sense of saying actually this, this, this has real merit. It has, um, substance and can offer, um, value to both parties, both, um, academia and to business practice. And so I think for that reason, I guess that's why many of us stay the course and advocate it because we can see the value and the benefit, but that that is a journey.

It's not. It's not an end game. It's a journey. And I think as long as we accept that, then that's okay.

Ged Hall: 00:15:08

Helen, I'm just going to come to you because I'm sure, you know, with the pause I allowed people to hit, everybody has now read the paper, but let's, let's be kind to them and kind of sense check their reading of it.

an overview of the, of those: 1500

Helen Hughes 00:15:31

as a real challenge to get to: 1500

What is, You know, what is pro academia? What's it about? But I think the hook that we sort of brought into this article is thinking about this as what we describe as a what we call a socio technical challenge. And so what that means is, is really that, you know, it's all very well saying, you know, we need a role for for pracacademics in, you know, somehow sort of connecting these different worlds of practice and academia, that somehow they have value.

We sort of take that in our article as a given, you know, that people can have value. But I suppose the, you know, the, what we get to in this article is, but actually how do you make that happen? And because if you just sort of chuck people into this system that is so deeply rooted, you know, at the, the academic, um, You know, university systems that we have both in the UK and internationally, um, are built around some quite sort of strong cultural foundations, um, and that actually, if we want to thrive in these environments, really, this article is about what do we need to do, um, to, to, to think about that.

And so we take And what we describe as a socio technical framework that borrows from sort of theory from my academic field. And basically the socio technical lens is about saying, look, if you make a change to some part of the system, whether it is, you know, the recruitment, now that we've got pracacademics in the workplace, we also have to think about the way that that is jointly optimized, if you like, with the surrounding system.

So that's going to involve. you know, necessary changes to the culture and it's going to mean that we need to think about what the metrics are through which we evaluate, you know, pracacademia and so on. And because the existing metrics might no longer really work. And it's about thinking through, you know, the infrastructure.

Where do you put these people? How do you know, structurally, do we need to reshape the organisation? And it's thinking about all of those things together. So not a separate things and saying, right, this is the system. This is the square box that these round pegs have to go into it's about really going back to some basics and thinking, actually, how do we reconfigure and redesign a system so that this all works in terms of delivering the goals that universities are ultimately aiming for?

up against, um, you know, underpinned by things like the SDGs and the sort of wider, um, you know, wider world we live in. And so, yeah, so in a nutshell, we're sort of taking that perspective. I don't think we get quite as deep into the theory as I just have done it, so it's a bit more surface level, but really thinking about what principles need to drive that.

So in, in socio technical theory, we talk about, you know, systems work better when change is pulled by the users of it, you know, you can't just force this on people, it has to be bought into, and we talk about, you know, the really long standing metrics. So in Business Schools, you know, we have accreditations and rankings and what does that look like?

How does that need to shift? And so, so we think about principles. And then as you say, we sort of. Get to a point of, okay, so how do we use this to enable pracademia as a vehicle? And we talk about some of the challenges of that and ultimately come up with three, um, sort of immediate actions.

Ged Hall: 00:19:06

Yeah, so, so coming to those, um, Looking at that first one, I think I'm reading this accurately from the, from the paper, but we, we suggested championing pracademic insights and valuing theory and practice as two halves of the same problem.

first online back in October: 2024

And David, I'm going to come to you as kind of, uh, you know, the person who's not been as grown up in the, in the sector as possible and maybe can give us the best almost objective view of it.

David Loseby: 00:19:56

Yeah, I think, I think, thank you. I think some, some of the things that I witnessed certainly, and I, as I, I've said earlier, um, Uh, to you guys prior to recording this podcast that I just spent the last sort of five months working as a group chief procurement officer for an organisation, um, for a, um, a FTSE 250 company, um, and it's interesting that, that the way in which, um, people sort of, um, Uh, look at information, make decisions, that sort of thing.

And it was interesting, as I sort of in the last few weeks of my time at the business, and one of the MDs of one of the business units turned to me and he said, you know what, he said, you've made us think completely differently about some of this stuff. And he said, I really thank you for that. He said, because we would have never thought about it like this way before.

itment, you know, net zero by: 2030

And I said, Oh, that's pretty racy. Um, let me do a bit of, you know, let me just do a little bit of research on this and I'll come back to you and, you know, let you know what I, what I think. Um, so I went back to the general counsel and I said, well, I've done some analysis and 25 of your top suppliers, in other words, by spend, in other words, nearly 70 percent of the external spend to this organisation, which runs into billions, by the way.

eir commitment to net zero is: 2050

And I said, you know, you will take some, some heat for that if you then reverse that at a later date. And they said, well, we hadn't thought about it like that. So I said, well, yeah, I, I applaud your, your noble endeavours in terms of trying to get to net zero quickly. I said, but you've also got to be realistic too.

I said, because Guess what? Google and Microsoft are not going to turn around and go, Ah, yeah, now you mentioned it, we'll just dial forward by 20 years our net zero commitments. They're not going to do that. And I think that's where then the rigour of academia that, you know, it's back to the classic, which is if you can't back up what you're saying, then it's just an opinion.

I think the rigour in academia is to say, I need to make sure that if I make a statement, I can back it up. It's not just something that I Solely rely upon my own personal experience because it's back to the Herbert Simons of this world. It's the bounded rationality of I only know what I know I don't know all the other things so if I need to go figure that out And I think that's where the intersection of this sort of two way street as I call it between academia and practice where You both act as a sort of a conduit, a catalyst, um, a sort of a, you know, what I call the make sense and translate sometimes.

You're making sense of the business issues and you're translating them into a way that says I could apply some rigour and methodology to this and actually come out with something that says based on this information, based on this sort of piece of a of research and analysis, it would tell me that this is the answer.

Not the one that you might, in inverted commas, back to the earlier discussions, emotionally believe that that would be really good if we could do that. Yeah, it might be, but actually, the chances of achieving it are pretty low. Plus the fact we know that certain technologies that we know we need to get to net zero are probably about 10 years away.

So the other reality is that some of the technologies that we actually need to tackle some of the wicked problems around, you know, dealing with plastics and all sorts of wonderful things like that, Probably 10 years away, even in terms of energy generation techniques and, you know, all sorts of things.

So I think this sort of, there is validity in sort of bringing those two sort of, how can I put it, ways of thinking, it's what I call the cognitive diversity piece, which is the two worlds think. slightly differently, but that's good because finding a way to harness those two things together is actually quite powerful.

And I guess that's my, my sense of it. And I think that's where pracademia then really, really scores heavily because if there's, if there's sufficiency in, in, uh, recognition, humility, and adoption of different ways of thinking and ideas, I think that's where you get the better results. And I think that's, that, that does require a certain mindset to, to actually achieve that.

Ged Hall: 00:24:57

So Jill, I'm going to come to you in terms of your thoughts in terms of how we might value things more effectively in the pracademic space.

Jill Dickinson: 00:25:07

Thank you Ged. So yeah, following the edited collection that I produced and also this paper, I've been leading on some workshops and follow up seminars with colleagues across the sector.

And I think there's some real work to be done around recognising all of the different skills, experience and knowledge that pracademics bring with them from practice into higher education. Um, yes, some institutions have developed really comprehensive career frameworks that recognise specifically former practitioner experience, um, and the links that, that Um, individuals can still make with their form of practice.

So around developing mutually beneficial research projects that actually meet real world challenges faced by practitioners in terms of disseminating findings, but also generating meaningful impact. Um, but from what I'm hearing, not all institutions take that approach as yet. And it's not clear to me at least, um, why that might be the case.

Because I think by. Doing some work to diversify career pathways, universities could retain more of the pracademics that they currently have working for them, but also attract new colleagues into the sector as well. And then the other thing, if we're going to generate really meaningful research projects, I think it's, there's something around building in pracademics' insights from the outset.

So right at that initial research design stage, not just drawing on the context that they bring from practice as part of the dissemination of the findings, so building in that experience from the start. Um, so yeah, we, we just need recognise pracademics has been, I think, much more than their contact network.

You know, they've got the potential to bring lots more to this, lots of other transferable skills and experiences to a research project. For example, problem solving, project management skills, and that they developed through their previous practice. So for me, those two points, particularly jump out.

Ged Hall: 00:27:02

And I'll bring you in Helen.

Helen Hughes: 00:27:04

Hello. Well, so I'm going to take it back a step to the academic world that I sort of live in and just say, I think that one of the things that really needs to change to help this sort of growth is some of our journals actually. As, as someone who is, you know, naturally quite interdisciplinary, I work across disciplines as much as across, you know, industry and, uh, and, uh, academia.

So I'm, I'm very much involved with colleagues who are in medicine, both academic and practice, uh, engineering and, you know, other sectors too. And I think one of the challenges is it can be really difficult to publish those kind of interdisciplinary collaborations in the true sense that they were undertaken, because many of our journals are so sort of.

Um, topics specific or feel specific that they sort of encourage you to narrow it down. And in a sense, almost dilute the story so that this great big problem becomes something much more simplified and easy to write about. And similarly alongside that, I think within our journals, It can be quite difficult because certainly in my field of psychology, we can be quite purist about our methodologies, which can mean that, you know, a sample size has to be a particular amount or we we can't.

It's much harder to demonstrate, you know, applied findings because the purer kind of you know, control groups and experimental conditions is somehow better. And I just think, you know, across our journals, we just need to broaden our conversations so that there are people representing pracademic perspectives on editorial boards, that there are sections in journals where we can contribute meaningfully, and also where within the academic world we operate in, that is rewarded.

In in terms of what you know and incentivise so that pracademics are not just sort of Appointed as sort of adjunct faculty where they don't need to count towards REFs (Research Excellence Frameworks) So let's you know, let's appoint on a different guys. I think it's thinking about how do we appoint people and meaningfully? Reward them but that does require this system change that involves journals and funders and, you know, accreditation bodies and all the rest of it.

Ged Hall: 00:29:17

Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, in terms of our own research culture strategy here at, uh, here at the University of Leeds, one of, uh, one of the, uh, strategic objectives is that kind of diversification of who's involved, who's acknowledged as being involved in research and the types of diversification of the outputs that we're, that we're talking about.

But it isn't, you know. We can't achieve that objective. Um, systemically, we can, we can help to push the dial within the organisation so that, um, so that we value and celebrate things that are slightly more unusual than the very traditional output, but We can't make it, we can't suddenly make it easier as an institution for that output to be in a particular journal or, um, yeah.

Helen Hughes: 00:30:09

And I think just to sort of finish off that point, because it's something that's dawned on me a few times while we've been speaking today, is that there are, I think there are disciplines. that do this better. So I think, you know, David and I, for instance, both representing a business school background and field.

But actually, you know, I work, as I said, quite a lot with colleagues in medicine, for instance, where actually I think I don't recall conversations where they've referred to themselves as pracademics. But I know that there are surgeons who practice several days a week and and do surgery. Um, but then also writing top of you know, top of the game kind of academic scholarly articles that are very well respected whether they call themselves pracademics or not, I don't know, but but there are fields where that is very well respected and actually seen as quite a gold standard.

Um, you know, maybe there's a disciplinary element to this as well, that, that We perhaps don't have time for, for today, but maybe you just have on the radar.

Ged Hall: 00:31:05

Yeah, I think that's a really good one because, you know, medicine is hopefully much more evidence led than some other, some other disciplinary spaces out there.

You know, um, in the policy space, for instance, they talk about evidence informed because it's never evidence led. Um, so yeah, that's a, that's an interesting point to make. Um, in terms of, um, kind of thinking about the kind of next suggestion that we had, which was to, to stimulate an international task force to align metrics, indicators, and values.

So that's really trying to move things on that kind of systemic level. Helen, I'll come, I'll come to you because you were kind of like leading into that. What, what are your thoughts on what the steps would be in this space?

Helen Hughes: 00:31:54

Well, so I, I'm not. deeply enough embedded in some of these organisations to really know how that, how, how we get to that next step.

But it does feel that there are quite clearly a number of stakeholders that all have vested interests in the system as is, and Would need moving and mobilising in order to move to something more where pracademia is much more genuinely embraced. And I think what we said in the paper was, you know, around how to get to get that you need some kind of international task force.

And I don't know necessarily what that looks like. David and Jill may have better views on that. But I think as a very starting point, it's just identifying who are those stakeholders. We puts them in the paper. We talked about accreditation agencies, journal editors, funding bodies, industry experts, policy makers and members of the academic and pracademic communities.

But I think there's a whole piece of work around identifying those people before you can get to the point of thinking about what next, what then happens. But in the paper, we talked about, you know, getting some kind of task force together. with a specific remit for thinking through what these metrics for success look like, what the indicators are, and what the values are that should drive this process.

And I, I, I don't know quite where we start with it, but it's definitely fundamental to that shift.

Ged Hall: 00:33:22

Yeah, sure. Jill, I'm going to come to you to pick up the baton from Helen there.

Jill Dickinson: 00:33:28

Absolutely. Thank you. Um, so I think for me, obviously we're, we're in the run up now to the next Research Excellence Framework.

Um, and there's a lot of discourse that I'm hearing across the sector around a real push. For more three star, if not four star papers, obviously to help bring in more funding and further develop institutional profiles. And I think there's a real danger with that because it can send out completely the wrong message to those who are just starting out in their academic career, you know, whether it's new academics or You know, who have taken a more traditional career path or, or as pracademics, and they might not have ever heard of REF, you know, it's all in an acronym, isn't it?

They maybe never have written a journal article before. And if they're hearing that anything less than the three stars is never going to be enough, it might just put them off completely from trying to get published. So I think that kind of narrative could have a real impact on the pipeline of papers that are coming through.

Um, and so I think across the HE sector. We need to send out more positive messages around, you know, what can constitute quality research, the broad range of things that could and should count, um, and how we can measure performance against them. Um, so, you know, a broader range of factors than, for example, the number of citations a paper's had, or the particular quartile of a journal it's been published in.

Um, and then the other point, as we move towards the next REF, there seems to be a growing interest in the value of. multidisciplinary research. And it's interesting because what constitutes a three star journal in one discipline doesn't necessarily carry the same gravitas in another discipline. So for me, I think there's a piece of work to be done around that, um, you know, towards.

Leveling the playing field so that we can encourage academics from any career to carry out more multidisciplinary research because we know it works for solving complex, knotty problems.

Ged Hall: 00:35:28

David, any final thoughts on that metrics and indicators issue?

David Loseby: 00:35:33

Yeah, well, I have. Um, the risk is I could be too controversial, so I'll step back slightly from that.

Um, you know, what, what, I mean, I'm, I'm, As you know, I'm also editor in chief of two, two other journals. So, um, you know, what I see come through and, and the challenges of, uh, citation factors, impact factors, um, all those kind of things are, are, are questions I get as an editor in chief. But also what you'll see then on the flip side of that at the institutional level is as, Jill and Helen have both referenced, you know, you've got to publish in three or four star papers, you know, et cetera, et cetera.

Interestingly, the REF, the Research Excellence Framework, just came out and said, actually, we'll recognise two star papers. And that's, that's great. Um, there's a, there's an up weighting of the People, Culture and Environment piece to 25%. Um, there's still discussions about who gets included, if you like, in what I call the drag net of numbers for, um, Uh, those that get included in the, uh, the number of impact case studies per institution or business school, whatever it happens to be.

Um, and so I think that, that it is slowly moving, but I think it's the pace, unfortunately, is quite glacial and, and that, that's the worry. And to get Jill's point, then I think that, that, that, that could become a bit of a turnoff, if you like, for Um, early academics and scholars, um, and so therefore you do, you do need that shift, but I think interesting work working with one particular publisher.

There is no, I'll call it body of publishers for it, for example, that says actually we've got an opportunity to change, if you like, the dynamics of this, um, which is quite sad because they all act independently. Um, so I think there's a number of factors that sort of. Um, how can I put it? We'll, we'll, we'll continue to be challenges in, in this space, but that doesn't mean to say that we shouldn't continue to challenge.

And I do know that, you know, um, the, the, the, the route through into getting different sort of, I'll call it levels of, uh, professoriates and, and, and that sort of thing, um, is hugely biased towards, so how many three and four star papers have you published, you know, that kind of thing, as opposed to, um, The recognition for impact case studies as an example.

So actually, I don't think it's one of the metrics in many universities where impact case studies are part and parcel of the portfolio of evidence for submission for, um, uh, academics that are progressing through their career, which is quite interesting when you think about it. And particularly when you look at the amount of funding that is, um, how can I put it?

related to that. So I think at Leeds University Business School, I think I'm right in saying that I think it's 54 million pounds a year is attributed to the fact that the rankings that we've got on impact cases. Um, so you'd have to say, well, If I was in a business and I knew that, you know, there was there was serious price tag allocated to, you know, one particular attribute, which in this case is impact case studies, then I'm damn sure make sure that that was in somebody's objectives.

And I'd absolutely link it to, to the performance and things like that, because that's how I work as a businessman. That's what I would do. So, so there's certain things that I think that the. I'll call it the, the, the academic institution in a sense can help itself to move that dial along. And, and, you know, I, I'm hoping that, that as the different sort of, um, uh, how can I put it?

Um, Pro-deans, Directors of Research and Innovation, et cetera. Continue to evolve and look at new ideas and new ways of doing things. You'd hope that that gets pulled through as part and parcel of that agenda. And, but I think, you know, I'm hoping that the research that the likes of us and others will do in this space will help to inform that dialogue.

So that would be my, my optimism in terms of saying, yes, there is a building body of evidence that says this is the right thing to do. And this is the right way to go.

Ged Hall: 00:39:57

Yeah, we had hoped to have some funding that, uh, that would have led to some empirical work that would really strengthened this as a, as a publication, you know, kind of would have taken it up the, that, uh, that strange hierarchy that exists, isn't it?

Um, so kind of final point in terms that we kind of made in, in the, in the paper was around kind of technologies, local technologies, local systems, infrastructure, and, and the processes. So that kind of, um, All the things that sit around the people in this, in the system. Um, so for each of you, what, what suggestions you've got that, uh, that would improve those locally in your, in, you know, in your local environments?

So Jill, I'll come to you as you're, uh, as you were at, uh, at the University of Leeds, but now you're at Leeds Beckett, you'll have seen two different local technologies and systems. So how would you improve either of them?

Jill Dickinson: 00:40:52

Thank you, Ged. So yeah, I think, you know, across the sector, things are heading in the right direction, but there is quite a lot of work still to be done.

And so I mentioned earlier, establishing more diverse career pathways, um, to recognise previous practitioner experience. But I also think there's opportunities here for, um, institutions to promote pracademia, right from the recruitment and selection stage. Practitioners might not have had opportunities, might not have even wanted.

study for a doctorate, but I just wonder if that's a real reason that they shouldn't be shortlisted. So perhaps something around broadening and promoting diverse routes into academia, um, providing trainings to support those who are involved in recruitment and selection. So it's really clear about the broad range of things that can count and why.

And then when the pracademics been recruited, incorporating some tailored elements into the induction and CPD programmes to help both them, their peers, managers, leaders, to really surface the transferable skills that they're bringing to this and, and kind of champion their potential very much as, as part of a diverse faculty.

And I think the, the other thing is there's something around, um, institutions perhaps avoiding pigeonholing pracademics. So just because somebody was in practice previously, doesn't necessarily mean that they want to take up related roles in academia. So, you know, you might have a solicitor who had practiced, um, you know, for 10 years, moves into academia, doesn't mean necessarily that they might want to head up a law clinic.

It might be that they do, but I think we need to be careful around making assumptions, um, on that. So, yeah, thank you.

Ged Hall: 00:42:36

Brilliant. David, I'll, I'll come to you, um, and then I'll finish with Helen on that one. So, you know, in terms of your induction, um, as a Professor of Research Impact, what, you know, just to pick up on that point from Jill, what would, what would you say, um, could have been done better, um, what was good about it at the time as well?

David Loseby: 00:42:57

Yeah. One, one of the things that's always struck me, and, and I, and I remember the comment, um, and obviously I can't reference who said it, but it was, um, it was interesting they said, um, um, it's not important that you've, you've done, you know, you've studied a PhD. You, that's, that's not important. We just interested more in terms of, um, you know, your networks and, and the way in which you can, uh, facilitate discussions with business.

Um. My, my own reflection on that is that if I had not, um, done my MRes and, and gone through the whole sort of, you know, PhD journey, as it were, um, my ability to be able to connect with, discuss, understand how the system of academia works and all sorts of other wonderful things, um. I can't even imagine it.

I really can't. I can't. It's a bit like sort of saying to somebody, um, I want you to go and work in this car garage, but you don't have to have seen a car before, you know, it's, it'll be okay. You know, you just will, you know, you'll just figure it out. Um, you know, and I can't think of anything worse, really.

So I do think that the, there is a huge degree of naivety in terms of, um, that integration, I'll call it, um, into, into academia and vice versa, dare I say. So this whole piece that Jill cited, which I quite like, which is the whole recognition of the transferable skills, um, and recognising that and having somebody in situ that, how can I put it, can facilitate that journey.

So if I think about some of the best inductions I've had in, in the corporate world, um, there'd be somebody there that goes, Yeah, I understand your background, I understand your professional, um, disciplines, um, and I can orientate you around this organisation in terms of just how the systems work, how it ticks, um, you know, the key people to, key stakeholders to talk to, um.

And again, that, that, that sort of whole facilitation, if you think about it logically, I mean, the way in which the corporate world sees this is that if they get that right, you can get up to speed and be contributing to that organisation so much faster and having an impact than if they just go. There you go, go figure it out for yourself, um, which is the, you know, the other end of the spectrum, if you like.

Um, and so I, I do think that, um, that whole, irrespective of whether it's in academia or in, in practice, the whole process of inducting people and getting people up to speed so that they can contribute and be impactful is a huge one that, that not. All parties get right and it's, it's something that has frustrated me for many, many years when, you know, I've seen the, the, the real, the real sort of what I call the best of that versus the real worst of it.

Um, and I've been quite used to being chucked into lots of situations, including, um, you know, hostile situations where literally I had to run out of the airport, grab in a car and just drive through a. A track in the forest, sort of thing, or the jungle, just to sort of escape the bullets, sort of thing, so, you know, I'm used to sort of hostile induction, shall we say, in a sense, but I wouldn't advocate it for the average Joe that doesn't have a flak jacket, so it's, it's, you know, there are different ways of doing this, and I think that, um, You know, the, the more that we can, we can help ourselves to help others has to be the, has to be the way forward.

Ged Hall: 00:46:30

And Helen, what are your final thoughts on those processes, systems and technologies piece?

Helen Hughes: 00:46:35

Well, it's, it's interesting because one of the, one of the sort of, I guess, founding principles of sociotechnical systems is around this idea of there being multiple stakeholders and the fact that we all see the world slightly differently and we all have slightly different needs from the system and different values and different goals.

And I think. I suppose I'm going to be cautious here because we're all sitting around this table as fellow pracademics with views about that. And I guess we are one stakeholder group in this. And I think for me, there's still work for us to do to understand how pracademia fits. There's clearly a need, I really passionately believe that, but how that sits with the needs, values, goals of other stakeholders.

Because it's all very well as sort of career, this all needs to be redesigned so we can thrive. Um, but, but that is, I think, you know, In fairness, we're in a broader system and the system itself needs to thrive. And I think that goes back to the same, who's in our task force, who's, who's involved in this, who, who needs to be in, in that room.

And, and so some of the kind of what, what actually needs to change, I think depends on that question as well, like actually who, who's in the room. Um, but clearly as it currently stands, I think there are. Systems, technologies, as you say, you know, career pathways. There are things that just don't, that are incongruent at the moment and which are holding us back from success and which is stifling the field, I would say, you know, and the world of academia as we move forward.

So I think there's stuff to do in that sense, but I think, you know, if I was to sort of finish on a positive, um, you know, as an institution, I think, you know, the University of Leeds is in a brilliant place to lead some of the conversations there because we have a thriving discussion on research culture.

We want to be, you know, working in collaboration, delivering You know, civic engagement. We want to be in that space. So I think we're in a prime position, but it needs some leadership and it needs some thinking around actually who are the others in the room and how do we sort of work together.

Ged Hall: 00:48:46

Yeah, thanks, Helen. That's a really good point to kind of really, really emphasise that, that it isn't about raising the pracademic boat and letting the other boats sink. It is raising all those boats. Absolutely. David.

David Loseby: 00:49:03

Yeah, I think one final point from, from, from me in a sense is the fact that, that To, to, to build on what Helen has said, the fact that Leeds has had the vision to appoint Professors of Research Impact and recognise that there is a value add there.

I think I think that the therefore there are building blocks there to to mobilise on. Um, and so I do think that that it is is is good from that perspective, but I think it's also them building on that and saying, how can we build on that? What's the next step in that ladder that then helps for sort of how can I put it deliver more?

Um, from having embarked upon that journey, and I think that would be the bit that I would see in terms of the next steps of research, um, and an informed piece of research that's based upon some empirical evidence that helps us then build on that and say, yeah, actually, I mean, if you think about bodies like the UN and the World Economic Forum and the World Bank, they're very adept at bringing in academics as well as practitioners to develop their guidelines and all sorts of other things.

So, um, yeah, There's lots of custom and practice there in terms of what those organisations have done over many years. So I think, you know, there is a, there is a way of sort of assimilating that, that could be of value, um, in the context that we're talking about.

Ged Hall: 00:50:25

Thanks for, thanks for that final thought, David.

It was, uh, that's really interesting to kind of pull it all together and, um, and it's been really you know, we've, we've done the usual failure piece of a, of academics, you know, we kind of wrote the paper, got it, got it accepted. It was published and then we all, all fell in a heap and kind of like, thank God that's over.

Um, and, and it's been great to kind of resurrect the conversation and, and really start thinking about those next steps. Both for us to take and hopefully to stimulate some of our readers, some of our listeners, if, and readers of the paper, if they're, um, if they're interested in taking the next steps. So I'm going to say thanks for the really interesting conversation.

Again, it's always fascinating to be in the room with all, with all four of you, even though this is a virtual room that we're in today. And, and I'd just like to allow you all to say one final thing and, and, and thank all listeners for listening and to say goodbye. So Helen, you first.

Helen Hughes: 00:51:27

Well, yeah, I mean, I always find these conversations really, really interesting and could, could go on forever, and I think it's given lots of food for thought as to kind of where we go next, so yeah, thank, thank you very much for having me, I've really enjoyed, enjoyed today.

Ged Hall: 00:51:40

And David, you?

David Loseby: 00:51:42

Yeah, likewise, I mean, as I said, I think, I think the risk is that if you, um, set a time limit on our discussions, the chances are that we'll always over, over, overstep that, so, uh, because I think the, the topic is, You know, quite stimulating in its own right. And I think there's certainly a lot more to come.

And I'm sure we've got a lot more to give. But just to thank you, Ged, for for inviting and obviously the audience for listening. So thank you

Ged Hall: 00:52:07

and Jill. Final word to you.

Jill Dickinson: 00:52:09

Thank you. I think, yeah, the key. Message for me is just championing what everybody's bringing with them into academia, regardless of their, um, you know, career background and really working together around that.

So yeah, a big thanks from me, Ged, for, um, kindly arranging the session, making all the behind the scenes arrangements. And yeah, it's been a lovely opportunity to work with you. And, yeah, really enjoyed it.

Intro: 00:52:33

Thanks for listening to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast. Please subscribe so you never miss out on our brand new episodes.

And if you're enjoying the discussions, give us some love by dropping a five star rating and written review as it helps other research culturists find us. And please share with a friend and show them how to subscribe. Thanks for listening, and here's to you and your research culture.