RM Roadmap Survey
Results of the RM Roadmap Survey
The RM Roadmap Survey, completed in early 2024, was aimed at obtaining a comprehensive picture of contemporary Research Managers (RMs) across Europe.
The survey was completed by a broad range of experts at varying professional levels and has enabled the RM Roadmap project to provide a deeper understanding of who RMs are, where they work, and their education and experience.
The survey also looked at the different areas of research management RMs are active in, as well as investigating Research Managers’ preferences relating to a common terminology of the profession.
Following an exceptional response from RMs across Europe, we are able to present our results below!
Table of Contents
1: Who are Research Managers?
This page summarises the basic demographical character of Research Managers responding to our survey.
Main messages:
Three-quarters of Research Managers are women. The majority of them are between 35 and 54 years old and half of them have spent at least 10 years in the profession. Research Managers across Europe primarily speak English as a foreign language, and the majority of them confirmed the importance of English knowledge for their job.
A total of 3,069 responses were received by the closure of the questionnaire. Following the screening process, 2,212 respondents' responses were entered into the database.
The RM ROADMAP survey confirms the results of previous surveys (RAAAP, CARDEA), according to which Research Management across Europe are predominantly carried out by women (74.10% of the respondents are female).
An important achievement of our survey is that the sample presents a representative sample of Research Managers across Europe in terms of geography: half of the respondents are based in Western and Northern Europe, while the other half are in Southern, Central and Eastern Europe, as well as in non-EU countries.
Nevertheless, there are differences among countries’ representation: 100 respondents or more were from Spain, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Italy, respectively; while Finland, Norway, Belgium, Ireland, Turkey, Denmark and Poland had over 50 respondents.
The majority of Research Managers can be considered middle-aged, as they are between 35 and 54 years old (75%). Respondents have been engaged in the field of Research Management for an average of 9.5 years: more than two-thirds of them are working in the profession for at least 5 years, but generally more.
Research Managers primarily speak English as a foreign language, at least as independent users, but some as proficient users indicating the dominance of the English language in the field of RM. English is also considered by the majority of respondents (63%) as important for their job. Besides English, Spanish, French and German are spoken mainly by Research Managers, but none of these languages are considered important for the job itself.
2: Where do Research Managers Work?
This page summarises the characteristics of organisations employing Research Managers having responded to our survey.
Main messages:
Research Managers across Europe work in a great variety of organisations, primarily in universities and research institutions, but also at other types of organisations, including private companies, private non-profit companies and research funders.
The variety of the employer organisations is also demonstrated by the number of employees of these organisations. We can find Research Managers at a huge diversity of Research Performing Organisations, starting from small companies and NGOs to universities employing several thousands of staff.
Most Research Managers work at the central level of their organisation and tend to cover less specific areas than their colleagues at the decentralised levels. This suggests that Research Managers at the departmental level tend to provide more diverse support, while on the central level rather focused support.
Most of our Research Managers work in public organisations (76%), while 14% work in non-profit private and 6% in private organisations or companies. The fact that the RM Roadmap survey could engage a broader group of Research Managers working beyond the public sphere can be considered a great achievement.
This is also demonstrated by the fact that beyond universities, colleges and research institutions, a certain proportion is employed at other types of organisations, such as private companies and research funders. Approximately one-third of Research Managers were affiliated with a top-tier university, while an additional 22% were employed at a research-active university and a further 7% were engaged at a primarily teaching university.
The diversity of the employer organisations is also demonstrated by the fact that the number of employees shows a huge diversity and the different sizes are represented proportionately. Interestingly no major correlation can be found between the size of the organisation and the areas covered by Research Managers in their everyday work, so the size does not necessarily imply specification.
Most Research Managers work at the central level of their organisation (58.63%), while less than one-quarter of them work at departmental level (22.78%). Research Managers working at the central level tend to cover fewer areas in Research Management than their colleagues at the decentral level. While 30% of Research Managers at the central level cover a maximum of 2 different RM areas, the same proportion at the departmental level can cover 3 different RM areas. This suggests that RMs at the departmental level tend to provide more diverse support, while on the central level rather focused support.
3: Education and Experience of Research Managers
This page summarises the educational background, work experience and job positions of Research Managers responding to the RM ROADMAP survey.
Main messages:
Research Managers are highly educated as 90% hold either PhD or Master’s degree. Significant differences cannot be found between women and men, though slightly more men hold doctorate degree while slightly more women have Master’s degrees.
Research Managers have diverse educational backgrounds which is not necessarily related to the support they provide.
It is important to note that almost two-thirds of Research Managers don’t have certification or degree related to Research Management.
Almost half of Research Managers work in managerial positions and almost one-fifth as advisors. 16% declared to hold a leadership position, either related directly to supervising research support services or with broader responsibilities within Research Performing Organisations (RPO). Respondents inserted more than 1000 different job titles, while the most common job titles are project manager and research manager. All these aspects underline the emerging nature of the professions reflecting on the emerging nature of the profession.
Research Managers are highly educated as 43.42% hold a PhD, while 46.47% hold Master’s degrees. Significant differences cannot be found between women and men, though slightly more men hold doctorate degree and slightly more women have Master’s degree.
Research Managers have diverse educational backgrounds, coming from natural and life sciences (28.15%), social sciences (20.25%), humanities (14.75%), business (10.30%), and engineering (8.60%).
Interestingly, more Research Managers support the subject area in which they hold a degree in the field of medicine and health sciences, natural and life sciences and engineering. In other fields, they have either partial or no relation to the scientific area they support. On the other hand, Research Managers covering the whole institutional profile are coming primarily, but not exclusively, from the Humanities and Social sciences.
It is important to note that 64.81% of Research Managers don’t have professional accreditation in Research Management illustrating the emerging nature of the profession. Only 10% accomplished either a Masters or PhD studies with an emphasis on Research Management. Regarding the certificate programmes, 5.41% accomplished the EARMA Certificate in Research Management (CRM), and almost 3% one of the ARMA certificate programmes.
Almost half of Research Managers (49.4%) reported having managerial positions, while 18.7% advisor (internal or external), 3.3% administrator and 2.0% technician. 16% declared to hold leadership positions, either by leading the Research Support Office or having leadership positions at the RPO, such as Head of Research, Vice Dean, etc. Compared to previous surveys, significant differences regarding gender in the different positions cannot be found.
The emerging nature of the profession is also proven by the diversity of job titles. Respondents inserted more than 1000 different job titles, while the most common job titles are project manager and research manager. We see a lack of consistency either at the national or at the institutional levels.
4: Areas of Research Management
This page summarises the areas of Research Management based on the RM ROADMAP survey and the 2nd co-creation exercise under the title “Who are Research Managers? Skill and Competences”.
Main messages:
Research Managers work in a huge diversity of fields along the whole stream of research, while most of them cover (at least) proposal development (pre-award) and project support and management (post-award). Research Management covers other fields too, such as Research Strategy and Policy Development, Research Support Delivery, Training and Researcher Development, as well, as International Collaboration and institution branding.
Only a small portion of Research Managers covers only one area in their daily work, while a quarter of them cover 2 or even 3 different RM areas. All these underline the fluid, flexible nature of the profession, the diverse and complex activities, the shifting environments, the blended and constantly emerging roles in Research Management.
Identifying the main areas of Research Management is important for defining the profession. Our survey results show that Research Managers work in a huge diversity of fields along the whole stream of research, while most of them cover (at least) proposal development (pre-award, 70%) and project support and management (post-award, 64%). But Research management is nowadays much more than only pre-award and post-award: several RMs also work in Research Strategy and Policy Development (46%), Research Support Delivery (42%), Training and Researcher Development (38%), as well, as International Collaboration, Institution branding (33%).
Only a small portion (10.3%) covers only one RM area in their daily work, while a quarter of them (24.4%) cover 2 or even 3 different RM areas, while another quarter (25%) cover 4 or even 5 different areas.
The 2nd co-creation exercise of the RM ROADMAP aimed to validate the preliminary results of the survey regarding the areas covered by Research Managers aiming to pave the way for the common definition. While agreeing with the multifaceted and complex job roles of RMs, national and thematic groups mentioned that the following sub-areas could be considered as separate areas of Research Management:
- financial management and advising,
- legal advising, contract management, ensuring compliance;
- management of and advising on open science;
- AI and emerging, technologies;
- collaboration with other stakeholders;
- impact management.
Secondly, the outcomes of the consensus documents suggest that
- management of human resources could be the overarching category including the training, and career development of researchers and RMs as well as taking care of mental health;
- innovation management and business development could be merged and could replace the existing categories of “Translation of Results: Uptake and Utilisation” and “Collaboration with the Industry”.
5: Seeking for a European term preferred by Research Managers
This page summarises Research Managers’ preferences towards a common terminology of the profession based on the RM Roadmap survey and the 2nd co-creation exercise under the title “Who are Research Managers? Skill and Competences”.
Main messages:
European Research Managers’ most preferred 3 umbrella / collective terms are
1) Research Manager and Administrator,
2) Research Manager, and
3) Research Management and Support Professional.
The co-creation session altered slightly the results, bringing Research Managers to the top and shifting RMA to the second place. Both have their merits and drawbacks, and certain geographical differences can also be observed. These differences shall not be reflected in the consensual European term but rather at national levels.
The professional recognition of Research Management necessitates a common terminology that is used and understood not only by professionals but the relevant stakeholders. According to the RM Roadmap survey, Research Managers’ most preferred 3 umbrella / collective terms are 1) Research Manager and Administrator, 2) Research Manager, and 3) Research Management and Support Professional.
Based on the survey, certain regional specificities can be observed regarding the preferred terminology.
During the co-creation session, Research Manager was ranked at first place by 14 countries and 3 thematic communities, while at second place by 2 countries.
Research Managers and Administrator was ranked at first place by 10 countries and 1 thematic community, while at second place by 6 countries.
To a certain extent, some geographical patterns can be observed: communities from Southern Europe prioritised almost unanimously the term Research Manager and put RMA in second place, which was prioritised by Northern European communities.
The terms Research Management and Support Professional was favoured at first place by the 4 national communities, while Research Support Professional generally appeared in third or fourth place, except for one country putting it in first place.
6: Employment Conditions of Research Managers
This page summarises the main characteristics of employment conditions of Research Managers based on the results of the RM Roadmap survey.
Main messages:
Compared to previous surveys, our results show positive trends in Research Managers’ employment conditions and characteristics.
An overwhelming majority of respondents have permanent contracts (74%) meaning that they are not employed anymore on a project basis; only 22% of the respondents have fixed time contracts.
The majority identifies themselves as full-time research managers (63%). 19% are employed full-time but combining research management with other roles, 9% with academic roles and almost 10% with other non-academic roles. It is notable that self-employment and other forms of employment are relatively uncommon.
Compared to previous surveys, our results show positive trends in Research Managers’ employment conditions and characteristics. Full-time employment is the most common among the respondents (82%); only about a tenth have a part-time job contract. An overwhelming majority have permanent contracts (74%) meaning that they are not employed anymore on a project basis; only 22% of the respondents have fixed time contracts and 11% have secondment.
In terms of employment, the majority of respondents identify themselves as full-time research managers (63%). Another 19% are employed full-time but combined research management with other roles, 9% with academic roles and almost 10% with non-academic roles. A total of 7% of respondents indicated that they are employed on a part-time basis as research managers, while a further 4% are employed on a part-time basis and concurrently assumed a managerial role in addition to other academic or non-academic roles. It is notable that self-employment and other forms of employment are relatively uncommon.
We found minor regional variations in employment patterns. Full-time employment is more prevalent in Northern and Southern Europe (88% and 90% compared to 82% for the total sample). Conversely, in Eastern Europe and outside the EU, self-employment and other forms are slightly more common (3% and 6% respectively compared to 2% of the total sample); while the share of part-time workers is higher in Western Europe.
7: Working Conditions of Research Managers
This page summarises certain aspects of Research Managers’ working conditions based on the results of the RM Roadmap survey.
Main messages:
Working from home is a common practice among RM professionals, as 86% confirmed that they work in this way. 60% of respondents regularly spend time travelling and attending meetings abroad.
Only one-third of Research Managers (35%) have not experienced significant overtime outside the limits of their formal contract. A notable proportion have not only worked overtime but have not received any form of compensation from their employer for the overtime they have worked (27%). 29% of the respondents are able to convert their overtime to days off while a tiny proportion (3%) receive financial compensation.
We aimed to get an understanding of the average time spent practically by Research Managers on their daily job. The average number of hours worked during a week by respondents is 37, with an average of 24 hours spent in the office or laboratory, 13.5 hours spent working from home, and an average of 3 hours per week spent travelling and attending meetings abroad. Working from home is a common practice among RM professionals, with 86% of them reporting that they also work in this way. Furthermore, 60% of respondents regularly spend time travelling and attending meetings abroad. On average, they spend 1-1.5 days abroad per month.
Research Managers reported a diverse range of weekly time-use patterns, influenced by their employment contracts. By definition, full-time respondents dedicate a greater proportion of their time to RM activities than part-time respondents. Additionally, they spend more time in the office and laboratory. However, the time required for working from home is not significantly different from that of part-time employees. Part-time workers also undertake slightly more travel for meetings held abroad.
Another crucial issue is working overtime. The results indicate that only about one-third of Research Managers (35%) have not experienced significant overtime outside the limits of their formal contract. However, a notable proportion of respondents have not only worked overtime but have not received any form of compensation from their employer for the overtime they have worked (27%). A total of 29% of the respondents are able to convert their overtime to days off. Furthermore, there is only a tiny proportion of Research Managers (3%) who receive financial compensation for the overtime they have worked.
Lastly, the survey data reveals disparities in the prevalence of overtime across regions. A lower incidence of overtime is observed in Central and Eastern Europe and in European countries not belonging to the EU. However, in these regions and in Southern Europe, instances of uncompensated overtime were most prevalent. No significant differences are observed by gender, age or type of employment contract.
8: Routes to Research Management and Reasons to Stay
This page summarises how Research Managers get into the profession, why they prefer to stay there and what are their challenges in the profession. The page is based on the results of the RM Roadmap survey.
Main messages:
It is still true that Research Managers “fall into” the profession, due to their skills match or due to the fact that they are interested in working in academia. This fact confirms the developing nature of the profession and the relative unavailability of graduate programmes in Research Management, as it is uncommon for RM professionals to have consciously prepared for a career in RM.
Almost all Research Managers (90%) agree to have a strong motivation to work in the science/academic sector, with a significant proportion (87%) also expressing a desire to support innovation and create new knowledge.
The most prevalent challenge for Research Managers is the lack of clarity regarding the career framework and job architecture (63%). Additionally, over half of the respondents cite the frequent expectation to perform tasks beyond their job description (59%), and the absence of professional recognition (57%).
Similarly to previous surveys, an outstanding majority of Research Managers (81%) agree that a good match of their skills with what is needed in the profession played a key role in their choice of RM career. Approximately half of Research Managers were previously engaged in academic or research activities and subsequently transitioned into a role in research management (46%). This suggests that becoming a professional in Research Management can be an alternative to an academic career. For some, the availability of the position (45%) was the main decisive element, or the RM job opened the door to working at a particular university/college/etc (41%). A mere 19% of respondents indicated that they had been interested in the field during their university studies. In short, Research Managers still fall into the profession. This fact confirms the developing nature of the profession and the relative unavailability of graduate programmes in Research Management, as it is uncommon for RM professionals to have consciously prepared for a career in RM.
What are the incentives for Research Managers to stay in the profession? The two most commonly cited motivational factors are related to the perceived attractiveness of the academic field. Almost all Research Managers (90%) agree to have a strong motivation to work in the science/academic sector, with a significant proportion (87%) also expressing a desire to support innovation and create new knowledge. This is followed by motivational factors related to teamwork, working with people and networking. Then the diverse challenges of the day-to-day tasks are mentioned that make the RM job varied and not boring.
We also aimed to reveal the most significant challenges and difficulties for RM professionals. The responses indicated that challenges related to professional recognition were perceived as more significant, while those related to career opportunities were perceived as less significant. The most prevalent challenge for Research Managers is the lack of clarity regarding the career framework and job architecture (63%). Additionally, over half of the respondents mentions the frequent expectation to perform tasks beyond their job description (59%), the absence of professional recognition (57%), the high-stress environment (57%), the lack of institutional policies (55%), the lack of professional identity (56%), and the lack of opportunities for professional development (51%) as significant obstacles.
As regards the expectations of Research Managers for career advancement, the aspiration for promotion towards leadership is the most common (46%), but approximately a third of the sample plan to change jobs to another institution (39%), gain experience in mobility (34%), progress through the institutional career ladder (33%) or obtain certification in the profession (31%). 29% of Research Managers need mentoring, while only 10% aim at acquiring a doctorate. As anticipated, a higher proportion of respondents with less experience plan to take steps to develop their careers, with a greater need for a change of job, obtaining a certificate and mentoring. They are also more likely to plan to complete a doctorate.
9: Skills & Competences of Research Managers
This page summarises the most important skills and competencies based on the findings of the RM Roadmap survey and the 2nd co-creation exercise under the title “Who are Research Managers? Skill and Competences”.
Main messages:
The most important skills for a career in Research Management
- in the field of transversal skills are problem-solving, written communication, interpersonal skills and multitasking.
- In the field of soft skills are prioritisation, time management, efficiency and effectiveness, reliability and trustworthiness, planning and strategic thinking,
- In the field of hard skills are language proficiency, knowledge of the rules and regulations of funders, and an understanding of research and the research and innovation (R&I) ecosystem.
The importance of specialisation and role-related skills are more dependent on the specific role and area in which Research Managers work.
Research Managers responding to the RM Roadmap survey agree that the skills and competencies in the area of transversal skills are considered to be the most important skills group. Among transversal skills, problem-solving, written communication, interpersonal skills and multitasking were considered to be the most important. The order of the skills required for career progression in RM differs slightly from that typically observed: the three most important transversal skills for advancement are problem-solving, self-motivation and interpersonal skills. These are more closely aligned with the skills typically expected of managers in higher positions.
The most important soft skills required for a career in RM are prioritisation, time management, efficiency and effectiveness, reliability and trustworthiness, as well as planning and strategic thinking. The order of skills required for career advancement showed a significant difference, with the most important being planning, strategic thinking, leadership and decision-making, and diplomatic skills. These skills strongly overlap with the skills required for any managerial position.
In the domain of hard skills, language proficiency is of paramount importance, particularly in the case of English. In addition, knowledge of the rules and regulations of funders, an understanding of research and the research and innovation (R&I) ecosystem, and an appreciation of institutional governance are also essential skills. Among the skills deemed essential for promotion, an understanding of research and the R&I ecosystem, an understanding of institutional governance, and management skills were identified as the most crucial.
The importance of specialisation and role-related skills are more dependent on the specific role or area in which Research Managers work. In general, the most importance skills are administrative skills, the ability to build and maintain networks, stakeholder engagement and management, and the capacity to appreciate values and understand interests.
Outcomes of the 2nd co-creation exercise:
There are several ‘horizontal’ skills and competencies that are needed by most RMs. These skills and competencies are related to their core role, namely supporting – and not conducting – research. These skills are the following:
- Among transversal skills: critical thinking, communication, interpersonal thinking, proactivity, cultural and diversity skills, problem-solving,
- Among soft skills: leadership skills, creative thinking, analytical thinking, facilitation, curiosity, resilience, conflict management and resolution, strategic thinking,
- Among hard skills: IT skills, digital literacy, AI skills.
Once these denominators are defined, it is important to identify the specific skills and competencies for the specialised fields and job roles in RM.
10: Professional Development Opportunities
Perceived Sufficiency of Professional Development Opportunities
The perception of sufficiency in professional development opportunities varies across different categories. Mobility and funding were identified as the most insufficient areas, with 71.3% and 80.1% of respondents, respectively, rating existing opportunities as inadequate.
While training and networking were evaluated slightly more favourably, a majority of research managers still expressed concerns about the availability and accessibility of these activities. 61.7% of respondents rated training opportunities as insufficient, while 52.1% felt that networking activities did not adequately meet their professional needs. These results suggest that while some opportunities exist, they are often not well-structured, not sufficiently funded, or not tailored to the specific career needs of research managers.
Limited Time, Limited Reach: Short-Term Engagement Dominates
The survey revealed that 81.9% of RMs dedicate less than one month per year to training, networking, and mobility combined. While training and networking are widely practiced (93.3% and 93.1% participation levels, respectively), mobility remains the least accessible professional development opportunity, with nearly one-third (32.1%) of RMs reporting no mobility engagement at all. This aligns with findings from the WP2 mapping, where mobility represented only 2.69% of the 335 opportunities identified, signalling a systemic gap in international professional exchange and knowledge transfer.
Barriers to Participation: Time, Funding, and Institutional Constraints
“Lack of time” emerged as the most cited barrier, reported by over 40% of respondents across all activity types. Financial constraints were the second most common challenge: more than two-thirds (67.8%) had not received funding for professional development in the past two years. The WP2 mapping confirmed the structural nature of this problem: 69.23% of all opportunities require payment, and long-term programmes can cost up to €25,00 annually.
Institutional support is also lacking. Around 25–30% of respondents indicated that their organisations did not provide adequate backing for professional development. Meanwhile, nearly one-third cited a lack of information or dispersed sources as barriers to finding opportunities. This finding directly informed the creation of the RM Roadmap’s searchable online catalogue, developed in collaboration with the CARDEA project.
Training Preferences: Flexibility, Interactivity, and Recognition
The survey results indicate a clear preference for short-term, flexible, and interactive training programs. The most favoured training format is intensive courses lasting less than one week, with 78.9% of respondents considering them suitable. Short-term courses lasting between one week and six months are also widely accepted, while long-term training programs of over six months receive significantly lower support.
Research managers show a strong preference for active, hands-on participation in training activities, with 76.5% of respondents favouring this approach over traditional lecture-based training. Online and hybrid training formats are also more popular than fully in-person programs, with 74.2% of respondents preferring online learning and 71.4% favouring hybrid learning.
Despite the demand for professional certification, formally accredited training programs remain scarce. While 75.1% of respondents expressed a preference for professional certification, only a limited number of accredited training programs were identified. The RM Roadmap mapping identified just four training programmes with professional and 15 ECTS-accredited courses, indicating a gap between demand and availability.
Professional Certification: Limited Use, Unclear Value
Professional certification is not widely regarded as essential in research management careers. For entering the profession, 64.6% of respondents viewed certification as not useful, and for career progression, 55.5% held the same view. Only 22.6% considered it useful for advancing in their roles.
This limited support is likely influenced by the fact that professional certification is rarely required or rewarded: only 8.5% of certified RMs said it was a job requirement, and just 19.8% found it helpful during hiring. Additionally, financial barriers and the scarcity of accredited programmes reduce its accessibility.
While support for certification is generally low across all regions, slightly more positive views were observed in Southern, Eastern, and non-EU countries, where professional certification may serve as a tool for formal recognition in less structured career systems. These findings suggest that certification could have a role in specific contexts but is not currently regarded as a cornerstone of professional development in the RM community.
Short-Term Mobility Dominates, but Structural Constraints Undermine Broader Participation
While 57.3% (n=1,002) of respondents support medium- and long-term international mobility schemes as beneficial for professionalisation and competitiveness in the European R&I ecosystem, actual participation in mobility programs remains low. Financial constraints are a key limiting factor, with 28.9% (n=656) of research managers citing a lack of funding as a barrier to mobility.
The preference for short-term mobility activities is evident in the survey results. 84.7% (n=1,544) of respondents favour attending conferences and professional meetings as a mobility format, while 76.2% (n=1,385) support short-term training programs of up to one week. In contrast, medium-term mobility (one week to one month) and long-term mobility (more than one month) are far less popular due to feasibility concerns related to work obligations and funding availability.
Key Policy Recommendations for Strengthening RM Professional Development
Survey data reveals a strong, community-driven consensus on the key actions needed to advance professional development and address persistent structural barriers in the field. These findings, triangulated with the mapping of 335 professional development opportunities and extensive co-creation sessions, confirm systemic misalignments between existing provision and RM professionals' needs. The following actions are not only preferred by the RM community but are also grounded in feasibility and urgency:
Centralise access to professional development opportunities.
A decisive 80.4% of respondents (n=1,405) indicated that a “one-stop-shop” platform for training, networking, mobility, and funding is useful or very useful. This preference directly responds to the fragmentation cited by 30.6% of RMs as a barrier to engagement. The RM Roadmap dashboard was developed to address this gap and now requires further consolidation, regular updates, and broader dissemination to ensure continued relevance and visibility.
Strengthen the role of national and local RM associations.
These associations play a critical role in peer learning, training, and support, especially in contexts where institutional backing is weak or absent. With 74.5% of respondents (n=1,302) endorsing their value, targeted structural and financial support for such networks is essential. Sustained investment will enhance inclusiveness, continuity, and their capacity to serve as strategic actors in the professionalisation of the field.
Expand flexible, short-term, accredited training options.
Micro-credentials and short courses are strongly favoured by 76.7% of respondents (n=1,339), reflecting time constraints and a preference for practical, hands-on learning. These formats align with the reality that 81.9% of RMs engage in professional development for less than one month per year. Expansion of modular, stackable, and accredited training options—delivered by universities and other recognised providers—is critical to professional recognition and career mobility.
Enhance HEI-level training to elevate visibility and legitimacy.
Although only 47.1% of respondents found university-level degrees useful for entry into the profession, a notable 59.6% (n=1,040) supported their expansion to increase recognition of RM careers within the broader research ecosystem. Such programmes must remain optional and not be positioned as mandatory entry routes, but they can play a legitimising role and support the development of structured learning pathways.
Develop career-stage-sensitive training pathways.
Training is currently dominated by generic content, with a scarcity of opportunities tailored to mid- (RM3) and senior-career (RM4) professionals. Only two offers in the mapping targeted RM3, and one targeted RM4. While 52.5% of survey respondents supported generalist training for entry-level staff, there is a clear demand for more specialised and modular content for advanced career stages. Future programmes should explicitly differentiate training based on role progression, aligned with frameworks such as RMComp.
Promote international mobility through dedicated and funded schemes.
Despite interest from 57.3% of RMs (n=1,002), mobility remains the most underdeveloped professional development area, representing only 2.69% of mapped opportunities. Financial barriers are significant—28.9% cited lack of funding—and one-third of respondents have never participated in mobility activities. A dedicated EU-level mobility scheme, prioritising mid- and senior-career RMs, is urgently needed to foster institutional capacity-building, leadership development, and knowledge exchange.
Explore mentoring schemes with realistic and tailored designs.
An international mentoring initiative received moderate support (57.1%, n=997), suggesting that any future scheme should be voluntary, focused on early-career professionals, and grounded in realistic delivery models. The feasibility of large-scale mentoring should be carefully assessed, with attention to mentor availability, institutional capacity, and participant expectations.
Avoid imposing mandatory professional certification frameworks.
Certification emerged as the least supported option: only 13.9% (n=242) considered it useful for entering the profession, and 22.6% (n=396) for progression. A majority found it not useful (64.6% for entry and 55.5% for progression), highlighting that mandatory certification would be misaligned with the profession’s current maturity level. Efforts in this area should remain voluntary, institutionally grounded, and inclusive of diverse career pathways, with recognition of prior experience playing a central role.
Authors: Virág ZSÁR, Luca KOLTAI, Márton MARKOVICS at HETFA Research Institute Ltd.
Survey results and database available here: