The Research Administration as a Profession (RAAAP) Survey
The Emerald Handbook of Research Management and Administration Around the World
ISBN: 978-1-80382-702-5, eISBN: 978-1-80382-701-8
Publication date: 29 November 2023
Abstract
In this chapter, we look at survey responses from the third Research Administration as a Profession Survey (RAAAP-3) conducted in 2022. We examine some demographic attributes of Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs) such as gender identity, age when entering the profession, age in the current role, and other personal characteristics such as birth country and current country of employment. We also explore the types of institutions where RMAs are employed, the type of work they do, their highest academic qualifications, whether they obtained professional accreditations, and their affiliation with any RMA professional associations. Each topic is investigated both globally and by geographic region to highlight similarities and differences. Overall we find the profession to be global, female-dominated, highly academically qualified, and mainly working in the higher education sector.
Keywords
Citation
Oliveira, C., Fischer, M., Kerridge, S. and Dutta, M. (2023), "The Research Administration as a Profession (RAAAP) Survey", Kerridge, S., Poli, S. and Yang-Yoshihara, M. (Ed.) The Emerald Handbook of Research Management and Administration Around the World, Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 113-123. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-701-820231011
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024 Cristina Oliveira, Melinda Fischer, Simon Kerridge and Madhuri Dutta
License
These works are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of these works (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
History of RAAAP
The RAAAP project started with an award from the National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA) Research Program in 2015. The initial project (see Kerridge & Scott, 2018a) was to create a questionnaire to survey RMAs around the world on their perceptions of the relative importance of ‘soft’ transferrable skills and ‘hard’ technical/RMA-specific skills. Due to a large number of responses, a snapshot of the RMA profession around the world was created. Following the initial survey in 2016, a second (RAAAP-2) survey was endorsed by INORMS, the International Network of Research Management Societies (see https://inorms.net/activities/raaap-taskforce/; https://bit.ly/raaap) and conducted in 2019 and included a focus on research engagement and impact. This chapter provides an overview of demographic data from the third iteration (RAAAP-3) from 2022. The survey also included a focus on ‘How I Became a Research Manager and Administrator’ – HIBARMA, see Chapter 2.3, Dutta et al. (2023) in order to discover more about routes into the profession.
Methodology
This survey was developed based on the previous iterations of the RAAAP survey, in 2016 and 2019. The main structure and questions from the past surveys were kept, enabling longitudinal studies on the evolution of the profession around the world (however, longitudinal analyses are not included in this chapter). Additionally, in eight of the questions, respondents were asked to reply concerning their ‘first role as RMA’ and ‘current role as RMA’, enabling a deeper analysis of the career progression within the profession.
The questionnaire was developed in the third quarter of 2021 and sent for review and feedback to the INORMS member associations. As with past iterations, the involvement of RMA associations was key to ensuring that all questions were understandable in all contexts across the globe and also to supporting the dissemination of the survey to its members, maximising the survey’s geographic coverage and the respective number of respondents.
The final survey contained 46 questions (see Fischer et al., 2022), providing up to 403 data points per respondent. The survey was constructed and delivered in Qualtrics. The estimated completion time was between 20 and 30 minutes, and the questionnaire included multiple-choice, Likert-type rating scales, and open-ended questions. In all questions related to the profession, respondents were asked to provide more information on their answers, to the non-mandatory open-ended question ‘please give details’. All questions were optional.
The RAAAP-3 survey was submitted and approved (with minor amendments) by each of the authors’ institutions’ ethical and compliance committees. The survey was launched on 25 January 2022 and disseminated to all INORMS member associations to cascade it to their members as they wished, including promoting it on their web pages, newsletters, and mailing lists.
The results presented below describe the sample participating in the survey, and, due to the number of responses, this is a potentially characteristic picture of the Research Management and Administration community. In addition, comparisons between responses provided in the different geographic regions can provide interesting insights into the profession around the world. For that, responses were grouped into five geographic regions, based on the datapoint AnalysisRegionofEmployment created and computed from the CountryOfEmployment. The geographical regions are Canada, Europe (excluding UK), Oceania, UK, USA, and the Rest of the World (including responses from 28 other countries). Note that throughout this chapter field names from the data sets are shown in bold italics, field values are shown in italics, and text from the questionnaire in ‘quoted italics’.
The RAAAP-3 survey captured 5,076 responses in total. Of those, only 3,532 provided geographic locations, spanning 66 different countries (CountryOfEmployment). The top 5 countries represented in the survey are the USA (30.9%), UK (13.5%), Australia (9.7%), Canada (5.0%), and China (3.4%); the darker hues in Fig. 2.2.1.
In terms of the AnalysisRegionofEmployment, the USA represents 30.9% of the responses, followed by Europe (excluding UK) with 28.5%, UK with 13.5%, Rest of the World with 11.3%, Oceania with 10.8%, and Canada with 5%.
RAAAP-3 Data
In this section, we highlight some of the major high-level findings from the RAAAP-3 main dataset (Kerridge, Dutta, et al., 2022a).
Fig. 2.2.2 shows the self-identified gender (GenderExtended) excluding Prefer not to provide across all regions (AnalysisRegionOfEmployment), it is clear that the profession is dominated by female respondents (79.5% of n = 3,521) a finding that has been made many times, for example, by Kerridge and Scott (2018a) and Shambrook et al. (2015). The greatest polarisations are in Canada (85.6% of n = 167), USA (84.2% of n = 1,073), UK (83.4% of n = 470), and Oceania (82.8% of n = 373) in terms of female RMAs. The Rest of the World region has the highest rate of self-identified male respondents (38.7% of n = 395) but is still a predominantly female workforce (61.0%). There are many potential reasons for these differences. For example, Shambrook et al. (2015) showed that in the USA the profession flipped from being predominantly male to predominantly female over time – perhaps as the profession matured, or more generally that there were more women in the workforce. In the Rest of the World region there are many countries where RMA is a new profession. Another potential contributor may be cultural differences, for example, the ratio of females in a specific country or region’s workforce, in general. Another area for future investigation is the engagement of males within the professional associations, which was the main mechanism for the distribution of the survey.
As we look at the age ranges of people in their first RMA role (FirstAgeRange) by Region (AnalysisRegionOfEmployment), we see that the largest proportion enter the field between the ages of 25 and 34 (47.2% of n = 3,444). This is especially true in Europe (excluding UK), where 52.9% (of 989) reported entering the field between the ages of 25 and 34, and in the UK, with 52.6% (n = 470). Interestingly, the USA (43.2% of n = 1,070) and Oceania (43.0% of n = 377) shared the lowest percentage of workers entering the RMA profession between the ages of 25 and 34. More investigation is needed, but this may be due to the circuitous, or ‘labyrinthine’ as Poli, Kerridge, et al. (2023) describe in Chapter 2.4, routes that many take on their way to finding themselves in the RMA profession. Respondents in the 35–44 age range were the second largest group to report entering the field, with 28.0%. The USA boasts the largest percentage of respondents aged 24 and under entering the field as their first job (17.3%) while Canada has the lowest percentage of respondents entering at an age below 25 (4.7% of n = 170). However, when looking at the ages of RMAs now (see Fig. 2.2.3) there are very few (0.4% of n = 3,451) 24 and under, which could suggest that RMAs are now joining at a later age – or perhaps more likely those 24 and under are so new to the profession that they have not yet engaged with the associations that distributed the survey.
When comparing the age range of those entering their first RMA role (FirstAgeRange, see Fig. 2.2.4) and respondents’ current age ranges (AgeRange) by Region (AnalysisRegionOfEmployment), it appears we have an ageing population who have remained in RMA positions. With the largest proportion of respondents (37.1% of n = 3,451) reporting their age in the 35–44 range, the second largest group was the 45–54 age range (31.1%). Oceania saw the largest percentage of respondents fall in this range, with 37.7% (of n = 374) in the range 45–54. Overall, we even see a sizeable percentage (15.3%) of RMAs in the 55–64 age range. This is especially prominent in the USA, where 23.1% (of n = 1,067) of RMAs are in the 55–64 age range, and in Canada, where 19.3% (of n = 171) are aged 55–64. The USA even reported 4.8% of respondents in the 65 and over age range. Whether this points to later retirement ages in the USA or a highly developed professional workforce who are passionate about their field and continue working late in life would need further investigation. Europe and the UK reported similar percentages of respondent age ranges, with the 35–44 (Europe 43.8% of n = 992, UK 41.8% of n = 471) most common, with 45–54 range trailing a little behind (Europe 30.0% and UK 32.5%).
When asked how senior (CurrentRoleLevelR3) they are, across the world (AnalysisRegionOfEmployment), nearly a quarter (23.0% of n = 3,476) reported that they were in Leader positions, with the largest proportion (29.0% of n = 1,088) in the USA. Conversely, the average for managerial positions was 37.1% with the USA having the second lowest proportion (33.6%) and the UK having the largest proportion (50.5% of n = 473). Canada had the lowest proportion of Manager staff (24.4% of n = 176), but the highest of Operational staff (47.2%). Whether these differences represent structural differences in the organisation of RMA around the world, a difference in self-perception, or the local semantics of the definitions, is unclear. For example, some may see the word ‘Manager’ and assume it pertains only to having subordinate staff, whereas others may view the management of a function, even if they are the only person in that function, as being managerial as opposed to administrative. Overall, it seems that the RAAAP-3 survey elicited responses from RMAs at a broad range of levels of seniority from the various regions of the world, see Fig. 2.2.5.
When asked what type of institution (InstitutionCharacter2) they worked in by Region (AnalysisRegionOfEmployment), the majority reported working in a University – Research Intensive (47.6% of n = 3,527). Fig. 2.2.6 shows this was true for each geographic region, with the Rest of the World reporting the lowest percentage (31.7% of n = 398) and the USA reporting the highest percentage (58.1% of n = 1,091). University – Research Active was the next highest designation of institution represented in the survey, with the highest percentage coming from Oceania (34.0% of n = 379) and the lowest from the USA (14.4%). Also in the university research ecosystem, we have University – PUI (Predominantly Undergraduate Institution) with 10.4% and Research Institutes with 9.3% of the responses. Private Companies, Hospitals, Charities, and Colleges all had representation, but the proportion of respondents was low. Whether this is due to there actually being fewer RMAs outside universities and research institutes, or that those working in non-traditional research areas are unaware of the RMA community and the professional associations that were largely responsible for the distribution of the survey is unclear, this is discussed by Santos et al. (2023, Chapter 2.5).
When using the macro-areas of Japanese taxonomy for RMA sub-areas of work (see Takahashi & Yoshioka-Kobayashi, 2016), which is looking at those that work in all of the subareas in each of the four major areas of ‘Research Development and Policy’ (RDP, JRespFor_RDP), ‘Pre Award’ (JRespFor_Pre), ‘Post Award’ (JRespFor_Post), and ‘Other Areas’ (JRespFor_Other), we see similarities and differences across the AnalysisRegionOfEmployment, shown in Fig. 2.2.7. Without exception in response to what parts of RMA do you work in, the most common area is ‘Pre Award’, with globally 37.5% (of n = 3,389) of RMAs covering all the aspects. Almost ubiquitously RDP was the next most common area (26.8% globally) apart from the USA, where ‘Post Award’ (28.0% of n = 1,075) outstrips RDP (22.2%). This is perhaps surprising, given the high proportion of leaders in the USA. Although this could potentially be explained by those leaders focusing on individual aspects or sub-areas of RDP, rather than macro-areas, which are displayed in this chart. Globally, those who work in all of the ‘Other Areas’ is a low percentage (4.4%), this is perhaps unsurprising as some of these areas are at the border of what is generally accepted as RMA, and again, all of the sub-areas would need to be undertaken for the result to show in JRespFor_Other.
A measure of RMA geographic mobility is shown in Fig. 2.2.8 by comparing CountryOfBirth with CountryOfEmployment, and shown by AnalysisRegionOfEmployment. Note that a person that was born in the same country as they currently work, but had worked elsewhere in between would show as Same, whereas someone born abroad, perhaps on a trip, but had never ventured outside their country after that would show as Moved, so this metric should be treated with caution. However, overall 15.9% (of n = 3,501) of RMAs now work in a country where they were not born. Looking at the UK the 18.3% (of n = 476) is a little higher than the national average (14.5%1). Oceania sees the largest mobile workforce with 30.1% (n = 375). The USA (7.1% of n = 1,085) and the Rest of the World (6.8% of n = 397) have the lowest levels. The latter is difficult to comment on due to the large variety of countries included, whereas the former differs greatly from the national USA average of 17.4%.2
The survey included 42 professional associations around the world for RMAs to indicate their affiliations ‘26. With which professional organizations are you affiliated?’ When five or more responses to the question ‘26a Other Association(s): Please provide details’ included a particular association, backcoding the responses provided an additional 10 associations, giving a total of 52 professional associations. Fig. 2.2.9 shows the number of affiliations RMAs have with different associations (Assoc_ACU_Member. Assoc_UIDP_Member, by region AnalysisRegionOfEmployment). Of the 3,582 responses, 53.2% of RMAs have one affiliation, and 15.3% have two affiliations. Interestingly, as the survey was distributed mainly by INORMS member associations, 25.2% report not having any affiliation with any RMA association. Overall 21.6% of RMAs have two or more association memberships, but this is skewed by the 35.9% (of n = 1,092) in the USA, and the 23.3% (of n = 1,007) in Europe (excluding UK). The former benefits from a large number of national associations, and the latter from a pan-European association and a number of national associations.
RMAs were asked to choose their ‘20. Level of Academic Qualification Gained BEFORE becoming an RMA and DURING your time as an RMA’. Fig. 2.2.10 shows a comparison of HighestQualification (computed from the highest of HighestQualBefore and HighestQualDuring) by AnalysisRegionOfEmployment. Of the RMAs who responded to this question, 42.0% (n = 3,520) have a Master’s degree, and a further 33.2% have a Doctorate degree, with 19.4% having a Bachelor’s degree. In terms of Master’s degrees, the largest proportion was in Europe (excluding UK) with 50.7% (of n = 1,003), and the next largest proportion was 47.2% (of n = 1,089) from the USA. Looking at RMAs with Doctorate degrees, the Rest of the World has the highest proportion (45.8% of n = 395) of RMAs with the UK (42.4% of n = 476) and Europe (excluding UK) (40.4% of n = 1,003) not far behind. Overall the RMA profession is highly academically qualified. The high proportion of Doctorates is likely associated with the number of RMAs who have moved from research with 25.1% (of n = 3,334) indicating that ‘I was previously an academic/researcher and moved into research administration’ being a top factor in their becoming an RMA (see Dutta et al., 2023).
The RAAAP-3 survey also asked ‘21. Please select all professional accreditation that you have related to research management and administration’. Fig. 2.2.11 is an analysis of AnyCRA (a computed variable from any positive response to the options PQ_AU_ARMF. PQ_OTHER) by AnalysisRegionOfEmployment. Across regions, 27.3% (of n = 3,532) of RMAs had at least one certification. Certification was the highest in the USA at 41.4% (of n = 1,092) and lowest in the UK at 12.4% (of n = 476) and Europe (excluding UK) at 16.7% (of n = 1,007). This is probably related to the length of time that RMA-specific certification has been available in the various regions – nearly 30 years in the USA, and fewer than 10 in the UK and Europe (excluding UK).
Summary and Reflections
The high number of respondents who included geographic data (n = 3,532) provides an important illustration of the Research Management and Administration community, with interesting insights into the profession around the world.
The profession is dominated by females in all regions of the world, but with less polarisation in the Rest of the World where RMA is a newer profession than in other regions. In terms of age range, the largest proportion of respondents entered the profession between the ages of 25 and 34, followed by the 35–44 age range, with some differences between regions of the world. Canada and USA have the largest proportion of older RMAs in their current role. When contrasting the age range of those entering their first RMA role and respondents’ current age ranges, the largest proportion of respondents reported their current age in the 35–44 range, followed by the 45–54 age range. A possible reason is that the longer you are in the profession, the more opportunities you have to engage in the RMA associations and they were the main dissemination channel of the survey.
High levels of academic qualifications characterise the RMAs who responded to the survey, with 42.0% having a Master’s degree, 33.2% a Doctorate degree, and 19.4% a Bachelor’s degree. The high proportion of Doctorates can possibly be explained by the 25.1% of RMAs who moved from research into RMA (see Dutta et al., 2023), suggesting a link between these two professions. The large majority of respondents (81.4%) reported working in the University context, mostly in a University – Research Intensive (47.6%), but University – Research Active (23.4%), University, and Research Institutes (10.4%) also had high proportions of respondents. This could, potentially, be an identity issue, with RMAs who work in other types of organisations unaware they work in Research Management and Administration (see Santos et al., 2023, Chapter 2.5). Overall, the RAAAP-3 survey elicited responses from RMAs at a broad range of levels of seniority and areas of RMA work from the various regions of the world. When looking at the level of seniority, the majority of respondents identified their role as either Manager or Operational. Though these terms may be interpreted differently in different regions, more people indicated they work somewhere in the middle of the professional hierarchy, with fewer selecting Leader and Assisting. Drilling down more, when asked what sub-area of work they were employed, the most common area was Pre-Award, followed by Research Development and Policy, and then Post-Award.
Across regions, more than a quarter of all respondents reported having at least one RMA-specific certification (27.3%). There was variation within the regions, with the USA having a higher proportion responding in the affirmative (41.4%), this could be related to the length of time that these certifications have been available. Another indicator of professionalisation is the creation and engagement with RMA professional associations. As stated above, 42 professional associations were presented as options in the survey, and another 10 were added due to having 5 or more unique respondents report an affiliation, for a total of 52 professional associations. Globally, over half (53.2%) of respondents reported affiliation with one association and over one-fifth (21.6%) with two or more associations. It is perhaps surprising that over a quarter (25.2%) reported having no RMA association affiliation given the primary method of distribution of the survey was through the associations.
In summary, RMA is a recognised profession across the world, with different levels of development and maturity in each region’s professional communities. Even given these differences in maturity, it is clear that RMA is ubiquitous, and supports all elements of the research lifecycle.
References
Dutta, Oliveira, Fischer, & Kerridge 2023Dutta, M., Oliveira, C. I., Fischer, M., & Kerridge, S. (2023). Routes into research management and administration. In S. Kerridge, S. Poli, & M. Yang-Yoshihara (Eds.), The Emerald handbook of research management and administration around the world (pp. 125–140). Emerald Publishing.
Fischer, Kerridge, Oliveira, & Dutta 2022Fischer, M., Kerridge, S., Oliveira, C. I., & Dutta, M. (2022). RAAAP-3 HIBARMA questionnaire (Version 3). figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20459370.v3
Kerridge, Dutta, Fischer, & Oliveira 2022Kerridge, S., Dutta, M., Fischer, M., & Oliveira, C. I. (2022). RAAAP-3 HIBARMA main dataset. figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21120058
Kerridge, & Scott 2018aKerridge, S., & Scott, S. F. (2018a). Research administration around the world. Research Management Review, 23(1), 34.
Poli, Kerridge, Ajai-Ajagbe, & Zornes 2023Poli, S., Kerridge, S., Ajai-Ajagbe, P. A., & Zornes, D. (2023). In S. Kerridge, S. Poli, & M. Yang-Yoshihara (Eds.), The Emerald handbook of research management and administration around the world (pp. 141–151). Emerald Publishing.
Santos, Varela, Kerridge, & Fischer 2023Santos, J. M. R. C. A., Varela, C., Kerridge, S., & Fischer, M. (2023). Where do RMAs work? In S. Kerridge, S. Poli, & M. Yang-Yoshihara (Eds.), The Emerald handbook of research management and administration around the world (pp. 155–166). Emerald Publishing.
Shambrook, Lasrado, Roberts, & O’Neal 2015Shambrook, J., Lasrado, V., Roberts, T. J., & O’Neal, T. (2015). 2015 Profile of a research administrator. https://srainternational.org/sites/default/files/documents/Shambrook,%20Jennifer.pdf
Takahashi, & Yoshioka-Kobayashi 2016Takahashi, M., & Yoshioka-Kobayashi, T. (2016). Understanding URAs in Japan: A conceptual framework for unified comprehension to diversified roles of URAs. The Journal of Science Policy and Research Management, 31(2), 223–235.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the thousands of research managers and administrators around the world who took the time to complete the survey. In particular the authors would like to acknowledge the various RAAAP-3 champions and their respective associations in INORMS and beyond for disseminating and promoting the survey.
- Prelims
- Introduction and Structure
- Introduction to Part 1
- Section 1: History
- Chapter 1.1: The Contribution of International Donors to African Research Management
- Chapter 1.2: History of Research Administration/Management in North America
- Chapter 1.3: Research Managers and Administrators in Asia: History and Future Expectations
- Chapter 1.4: History of Research Management in Australia and New Zealand
- Chapter 1.5: History of RMA in Central and Eastern European Countries
- Chapter 1.6: The Development of Research Management and Administration in Europe: A Short History
- Chapter 1.7: The Establishment and History of the International Network of Research Management Societies
- Section 2: Context
- Chapter 2.1: A Novel Definition of Professional Staff
- Chapter 2.2: The Research Administration as a Profession (RAAAP) Survey
- Chapter 2.3: Routes into Research Management and Administration
- Chapter 2.4: Research Management as Labyrinthine – How and Why People Become and Remain Research Managers and Administrators Around the World
- Chapter 2.5: Where Do RMAs Work?
- Chapter 2.6: The Establishment of a Research Project Management Office at a Medical School in University of São Paulo, FMRP-USP, Brazil
- Chapter 2.7: RMA Education, Training and Professional Development in North America and Europe
- Chapter 2.8: Pathways Towards the Creation of RMA Associations
- Section 3: Identity
- Chapter 3.1: From Conceptualisation to Action – The Quest for Understanding Attitudes of Research Managers and Administrators in the Wider World
- Chapter 3.2: Exploring Forms of Knowledge and Professionalism in RMA in a Global Context
- Chapter 3.3: Understanding Organisational Structures in RMA – An Overview of Structures and Cases in a Global Context
- Chapter 3.4: Research-related Information Management: Reflections from Southern African Practitioners
- Chapter 3.5: Empirical and Empathetic Approaches Taken by Science, Technology and Innovation Coordinators in Southeast Asia
- Chapter 3.6: The Influence of RMA Associations on Identity and Policymaking Internationally
- Chapter 3.7: Evolution of Professional Identity in Research Management and Administration
- Section 4: Professionalism
- Chapter 4.1: Professionalisation of Research Management and Administration in Southern Africa – A Case Study
- Chapter 4.2: Professionalisation of Research Support in Hungary Through the Lens of the Non-research Specific Requirements of Horizon Europe
- Chapter 4.3: Professional Staff in Support Services in Education and Research – How to Connect Research with Practice
- Chapter 4.4: Professional Associations and Professional Development Frameworks
- Chapter 4.5: RASPerS: Prevalence of Occupational Stress and Associated Factors in RMA Professionals
- Chapter 4.6: A Profession in the Making: Insights from Western Balkan Countries
- Chapter 4.7: Key Perspectives for a Long-term Career – Statistical Analysis of International Data for a New Profession
- Chapter 4.8: Diversity and Internationalisation: A New Core Competence for Research Managers?
- Part 2 - Section 5: Country Specific Chapters
- Chapter 5.1: Introduction to the RMA by Country Chapters
- Africa
- Chapter 5.2: Research Management and Administration in Kenya in a Challenging Research Environment
- Chapter 5.3: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Nigeria
- Chapter 5.4: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in South Africa
- North America
- Chapter 5.5: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Canada
- Chapter 5.6: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in the Caribbean Community
- Chapter 5.7: Research Administration in the United States
- South America
- Chapter 5.8: Research Management and Administration in Brazil
- Chapter 5.9: Maturity in the Professionalisation of the Research Managers and Administrators in Colombia
- Asia
- Chapter 5.10: Development of RMA in China
- Chapter 5.11: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in India
- Chapter 5.12: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Japan
- Chapter 5.13: Development of Research Management in Malaysia
- Chapter 5.14: Research Management and Administration in Pakistan's Context
- Chapter 5.15: Research Management and Administration (RMA) in Singapore: Development of RMA Capability in Nanyang Technological University (NTU)
- Chapter 5.16: Research Management and Administration in Vietnam
- Australasia
- Chapter 5.17: The Emergence of the Research Management Profession in Australia
- Chapter 5.18: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Aotearoa New Zealand
- Central and Eastern Europe
- Chapter 5.19: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in the Baltic Countries: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
- Chapter 5.20: RMA in Belarus: Not Yet a Full-Fledged Profession But an Important Part of R&D Activities
- Chapter 5.21: Research Management and Administration in Cyprus
- Chapter 5.22: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Czechia
- Chapter 5.23: Research Management and Administration in Poland
- Chapter 5.24: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Romania
- Chapter 5.25: Evolution of RMA in Slovenia
- Chapter 5.26: Research Management and Administration in the Western Balkans
- Western Europe
- Chapter 5.27: Areas of Research Management and Administration in Austria
- Chapter 5.28: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Denmark
- Chapter 5.29: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Finland
- Chapter 5.30: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in France
- Chapter 5.31: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Germany
- Chapter 5.32: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Iceland
- Chapter 5.33: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Ireland
- Chapter 5.34: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Italy
- Chapter 5.35: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in the Netherlands
- Chapter 5.36: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Norway
- Chapter 5.37: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Portugal
- Chapter 5.38: The Development of the RMA Profession in Catalonia (Spain)
- Chapter 5.39: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Sweden
- Chapter 5.40: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in the UK
- Middle East
- Chapter 5.41: Research Management and Administration in Qatar
- Chapter 5.42: Research Management and Administration in Saudi Arabia: Transitioning From an Oil to a Knowledge-based Economy
- Chapter 5.43: Research Management and Administration: An Emerging Profession in the UAE
- Chapter 5.44: Reflections on Research Management and Administration in Various Countries Around the World
- Section 6: Reflections
- Chapter 6: Emerging Trends and Insights in Research Management and Administration
- Glossary
- References
- Index