Management of a High-Performing Mental Health Recovery Research Group

Mike Slade

doi:10.3390/ijerph18084007

Abstract

A personal perspective is given on the processes involved in managing and sustaining a high-performing mental health recovery research group. The broader context of scholarship in the United Kingdom is outlined, in which academic productivity is commodified specifically in relation to peer-reviewed journal papers. Four leadership choices in developing a high-performing research group are discussed: optimal group size; sharing the workload; maintaining a programmatic focus; and performance expectations. Approaches to maximising innovation are identified, including emotional and intellectual engagement of team members, working with diverse stakeholders and convening communities of practice. We use a highly managed approach to publications from inception to acceptance, which is described in detail. The use of these approaches is illustrated in relation to the Recovery Research Team which was formed in 2009. Specific recovery-related issues covered include demonstrating the ability to develop a significant recovery research portfolio (our four current large [>UK£2 m] studies relate to recovery narratives, global mental health peer support work, digital interventions and Recovery Colleges); the positive implications of actively recruiting researchers with mental health lived experience; how performance issues are managed; our approach to involving lived experience co-authors in papers; and our decision to conduct mixed-methods rather than solely qualitative studies.

Highlights

In any job, doing well at ‘feeding the beast’ by meeting key performance indicators has many advantages
We have described our approach to managing a high-performing mental health recovery research group, up to the point of paper acceptance
10 April 2021) (16,989 unique visitors from 125 countries in 2020); Circulating the paper to all Recovery Research Team members so they can cite it in their papers

Summary

Introduction

In any job, doing well at ‘feeding the beast’ by meeting key performance indicators has many advantages. Health research in the UK continues to almost exclusively use bibliometrics such as hindices, citation metrics and journal impact factor, which are all based on traditional text-based papers published in academic journals These metrics are used when evaluating promotion, grant and fellowship applications, and when demonstrating productivity in national research appraisal programmes such as REF. For bench-marking purposes, the Recovery Research Team, which is generally viewed as a high-performing research group, published a mean of 21 peer-reviewed papers per year between 2015 and 2020. Our approach to managing high performance is described The aim of this approach is to improve, compared with less managed approaches, the innovation fostered by the team, the programmatic focus of the research, and the quality and quantity of outputs especially in relation to peer-reviewed academic publications. Key jobs of the research group leader are to maximise innovation and the quality and quantity of papers

Maximising Innovation

Maximising Quality

Wider internal research team

Specific experts

Maximising Quantity

Conclusions