A major consultation with the higher education sector,
researchers and other stakeholders took place at the end of
2009 to review the draft framework. This was conducted via
two online surveys, several focus groups and through direct
email responses. A total of 242 responses were received to
the consultation. There were 151 responses to a general
survey, 72 researchers responded to a separate researcher
survey and there were 19 email responses. In total, 87
responses were on behalf of organisations (65 HEIs) and 74
were from individuals working in institutions or related
organisations (Appendix 4). To ensure that the Vitae
Researcher Development Framework had resonance with
employers in a range of employment sectors, a follow up
consultation took place with a number of employers.
Analysis of the consultation responses was conducted by the
Clustering and Gap Analysis Working Group in spring 2010
and the report of the consultation published24 in May 2010.
Overall between 60% and 80% of respondents to all questions
agreed or mostly agreed that the framework’s proposed
purpose, scope and structure were useful. There was strong
support that it would be valuable for supporting the
professional development of researchers. It was thought to
have wide relevance and applicability, and the empirical basis
was particularly beneficial in providing a credible, robust
framework with a sound structure.
One of the predominant concerns in the consultation
feedback was about the clarity of the messages around the
purpose of the framework, particularly the importance of
providing a clear rationale to different stakeholder groups on
its value and uses. To address this concern it was agreed to
develop a series of briefings25 on the Vitae Researcher
Development Framework for various stakeholder groups.
Another predominant concern was how the framework related
to stages of career development. The consultation version of
the framework had loosely linked the phases of the framework
to various stages of researchers’ careers from new researcher
to eminent researcher. The main concern was that this link
could imply that progressing through the phases of
development for all the descriptors would ensure promotion
(see also Section 4.4). This would not sufficiently recognise
that opportunities for progression in academia are hugely
competitive and subject to many external factors, often out of
the control of the individual. The Project Group and Advisory
Group decided that this linking added an unnecessary level of
complexity and the potential for misunderstanding the primary
purpose of the Vitae Researcher Development Framework,
which was to support researchers to improve their practice.
A further concern was expressed about the size and intricacy
of the framework, although it was recognised that it captured
the complexity of the research role and the wide range of
skills required. It was felt that a summary statement would be
useful to inform those not necessarily engaging with the
framework as a self-development tool. Subsequently the Vitae
Researcher Development Statement was devised,
summarising the main body of the descriptors, to fulfil this
purpose (see Section 6).