Research in radiography is integral to the profession as we create and work from a robust evidence base, created by radiographers, for radiographers, seeking to optimise person-centred care. Building the right teams to undertake research is an essential first step towards disseminating high-quality evidence within the radiographic profession, which after all, patients require and deserve. Unfortunately, the implementation of evidence into practice remains slow and thus timely to discuss. In this commentary, we assert that more is required to ensure both structure and application, for radiography to remain an evidence based profession, of which, the concept/field of ‘implementation science’ is increasingly common, reflecting a paradigmatic shift [[1]Westerlund A. Nilsen P. Sundberg L. Implementation of implementation science knowledge: the research-practice gap paradox.Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2019; 16: 332Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar]. Research is essential to underpinning the optimisation of imaging and therapeutic practice in radiography, with academic radiographers traditionally best placed to lead research. In addition, clinical academics and/or clinical radiographers provide an essential contribution, which will increase in future years. Clinical radiographers understand important contemporary issues in practice and identify appropriate research questions but are perhaps ill-equipped with methodological skills to undertake research. In such circumstances, collaboration with experienced researchers/radiographers can progress studies, whilst helping to develop the skills to deliver research goals. In the longer term, more radiographers need to be educated to doctoral level, requiring some basic research education. [[2]Burkinshaw P. Bryant L.D. Magee C. et al.Ten years of NIHR research training: perceptions of the programmes: a qualitative interview study.BMJ Open. 2022; 12e046410Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar]. Radiography needs research leaders who have an excellent track record, are innovative problem solvers, able to build appropriate research teams and focus on delivering high quality multi-centred research that changes practice for the better. A commitment to nurturing future research radiographers and leaders is also key to succession planning. Clinical research in radiography practice should be led by radiographers who understand not only contemporary issues faced, but also foresee challenges. Further, in our view, a research leader should be able to work in a wider multidisciplinary team, both nationally and internationally, and successfully deliver on projects. Looking back in practice, radiographers do not work in silos but collaboratively in several clinical settings. This is not dissimilar to research leaders whereby research questions and implementation solutions require sound working relationships outside medical imaging. Whilst plausible, the authors are conscious of current backlogs (in the United Kingdom at least) due to COVID-19, and recurrent COVID-19 waves, adding to increased workplace pressures, both in academia and practice. The emergence of ‘long COVID’, a new disease that did not exist two and a half years ago, currently has 2 million sufferers, and growing [[12]Routen A. O'Mahoney L. Ayoubkhani D. et al.Understanding and tracking the impact of long COVID in the United Kingdom.Nat Med. 2022; 28: 11-15Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar]. This means that while academic and clinical practitioners in radiography remain stretched to deliver key services, it will become increasingly essential that research continues. In short, what will remain paramount is that interdisciplinary research continues to utilise complementary skills and expertise of our partners to deliver research objectives, which would otherwise not be possible [[3]Hogg P. Cresswell J. Interprofessional research teams in radiography-where the magic happens.Radiography. 2021; 27: S9-S13Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar]. This commentary seeks to reflect on the authors experiences that facilitate research leadership in radiography. We begin by discerning leadership from management. Developing research ‘leaders’ in radiography is essential to ensure radiography research can lead change in the future. It is perhaps more important than ever that radiographers lead large research studies to tackle big issues and address the implementation of new technology, techniques, and patient pathways. It is important to discern management from leadership. The literature offers some distinct attributes between what might constitute a ‘leader’ and/or a ‘manager’, the former considered to have ‘followers’ [[4]Parker, M. (2013) Misconceiving medical leadership.56 (3), pp.387-406.Google Scholar], whereas managers are attributed as senior members of staff that have employees who ‘work for them’. This is supported by others [[5]Hackman J.R. What is this thing called clinical leadership?.in: Nohria N. Khurana R. Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice. Harvard Business Press, Boston2010: 107-116Google Scholar,[6]Clay-Williams R. Ludlow K. Testa L. Li Z. Braithwaite J. Medical leadership, a systematic narrative review: do hospitals and healthcare organisations perform better when led by doctors?.BMJ Open. 2017; 7 (p): 1-11Crossref Scopus (39) Google Scholar, providing some acceptance that leaders acquire [ require] a ‘following’, created by virtues akin to an individual. A caveat, however, identifies that such terms are interchangeable [[6]Clay-Williams R. Ludlow K. Testa L. Li Z. Braithwaite J. Medical leadership, a systematic narrative review: do hospitals and healthcare organisations perform better when led by doctors?.BMJ Open. 2017; 7 (p): 1-11Crossref Scopus (39) Google Scholar], often adding confusion [[5]Hackman J.R. What is this thing called clinical leadership?.in: Nohria N. Khurana R. Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice. Harvard Business Press, Boston2010: 107-116Google Scholar]. It is unsurprising, however, that a 'research leader' in radiography will need attributes of both manager and leader. For Gardner [[7]Gardner J.W. On Leadership. The Free Press, New York1990Google Scholar], he encountered a first-class manager, who also turned out to possess leadership qualities; an acceptance that workplace leaders and workplace managers may not wholly be distinguishable. This is often termed the leader-manager and routine manager. The former concerned with thinking longer term, developing a research vision perhaps, and/or aspiring to longer-term goals and values by motivating others. Importantly, then, we should appreciate that research leaders in radiography are not simply managers or leaders per se, but perhaps a blend of attributes that allow them to lead on research or scholarly projects in radiography. This is supported by Kyratsis [[8]Kyratsis Y. Atun R. Phillips N. Tracey P. George G. Health systems in transition: professional identity work in the context of shifting institutional logics.Acad Manag J. 2016; 60Crossref Scopus (61) Google Scholar]. who acknowledges that there are nearly as many definitions of the term leadership as attempts to characterise it. Here, we appreciate that varied metaphysical and ontological assumptions will exist for the term ‘radiography leader’ in radiography research. For us to understand what it takes to become a research leader in radiography we need some general acceptance on what characterises it in the first place. Providing an argument here, in our commentary, it clearly stems from a constructivist ontology, thus immediately apparent that our worldview of ‘what’ or ‘who’ a leader is, will differ amongst individuals. By grappling with some of these assumptions we can not only question what leadership is, but importantly recognize limitations to prospective readers, allowing themselves to critically think what leadership in research means to them. Radiography is the most rapidly evolving allied health profession, partly due to being inextricably linked to technological advances and Moore's law [[9]Gustafson J.L. Moore's law.in: Padua D. Encyclopedia of Parallel Computing. Springer US, Boston, MA2011: 1177-1184Google Scholar]. With increasing artificial intelligence (AI) software to assist with the interpretation of images and treatment planning, radiographers are seeing operational change in their daily roles [[10]Malamateniou C. Knapp K. Pergola M. Woznitza N. Hardy M. Artificial intelligence in radiography: where are we now and what does the future hold?.Radiography. 2021; 27: S58-S62Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar]. Rapidly advancing technology brings ever-improved scans, better resolution, but sometimes increased complexity and a larger burden on scan time. In response, radiographers need to develop and implement novel solutions, question status quo, embrace emerging and disruptive technologies [[11]Terry O. Disruption innovation and theory.J Serv Sci Manag. 2020; 13: 449Google Scholar] and challenge patient pathways to ensure both cost effectiveness and high quality patient care. Healthcare is probably the most complex system to work within. Clay Christensen once said “Typical hospitals are not complicated. They are impossible”. This suggests that patient pathways are individual, reemphasizing the importance of personalised radiography, and importantly reflecting on complexities beknown to the individual themselves. Changing one aspect within a hospital may have multiple knock-on effects on other care services and therefore remains important that research leaders consider pathway implications of their own work, in addition to research questions. Disruptive technologies are likely to play an increasing role in future years and as more demand is placed on higher value imaging such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), nuclear medicine or positron emission tomography (PET/CT), it is essential that radiographers have the research skills that evaluate new technologies, both high value and disruptive. Creating an evidence base where new technology may be useful, coincided with understanding diagnostic or therapeutic advantages, and when and where these are best implemented is critical for our evidence base. Disruptive technologies have the potential to ease the burden on high-cost imaging, but patient pathways are going to be important to consider the most effective use. It is essential to keep patients, cost-effectiveness, and improved outcomes at the centre of prospective research in the future. Coming back to what leadership may mean upon considering the above, and especially within in an emerging technological environment, it is recognised that our practices and expertise may not simply need to mature, but become contextually emergent. In response to this, leadership, just like clinical intuition, requires experience, expertise and perhaps more importantly, collaboration with specialists in fields pertinent to our own. Undertaking research that will lead clinical change will become increasingly paramount. It is important to develop the correct team, whilst considering at what stage the research fits is essential for study design to be appropriate. This may be from a feasibility study through to the implementation or evaluating effectiveness. The Medical Research Council's (MRC) complex interventions framework provides an excellent platform to help researchers identify where proposed research should sit, whilst answering the right question(s), and at the right stage [[13]Skivington K. Matthews L. Simpson S.A. et al.A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of medical research council guidance.bmj. 2021; 374PubMed Google Scholar]. Having the right people in a research team is essential and will mean thinking strategically about factors that feed into the overall research project. For instance, thinking about the wider pathway for patients and whether other healthcare professionals are required, as part of that team. Radiographers work closely with radiologists, oncologists, physicists, and other healthcare professionals. Members of the research team, then, should naturally form part of a complex jigsaw puzzle adding value. Having the right people on the bus and ensuring they are in the right seat(s) is a useful analogy of ensuring a correct team is brought together, and at the right time. Methodologists are integral to any research team and while some radiographers may have quantitative or qualitative expertise, deemed as methodological specialisation, this will naturally support a research team and subsequent funding applications. . Further, health economists are essential to understand cost effectiveness of research and without their expertise it is unlikely to be implemented into practice. Operational researchers focus on understanding pathway changes, which are integral to a research team, for example, exploring alternate imaging pathways. Discrete event simulations can be a powerful tool to underpin pathway change by exploring unintended consequences, but also outcomes of any change. The use of “what if” scenarios provide several different models for comparison. These models can be useful to sell proposed changes to other stakeholders. Because power resides in the data whereby ‘real life’ data from a hospital, or hospitals, means stakeholders will recognise its value. In addition, they can envisage impact upon their own services and possibly scale up services, which are transferrable across other sites. Being able to lead research across multicentre trials is not something that happens overnight and thus important, as a profession, that radiography develops researchers for the future. Developing researchers is a long process. The undertaking of doctoral education begins by providing sound research training and education, which is why the Society and College of Radiographers recommends that Consultant Radiographers have, or are working towards, a doctoral level qualification. This ensures they achieve the research pillar as part of their career requirement. However, a PhD is just the initial phase and merely the beginning of a research career. More postdoctoral positions are needed in radiography to ensure consolidation of skills post PhD and thus enable radiography to move forward with increasing the number of radiographers who are equipped to lead research projects in the future. Focusing on helping junior staff build a research track record, with publications on their CV, coupled with developing funding from small pots to larger pots will become important to build and sustain research leaders in our profession. In this invited commentary we began by asking: ‘what is leadership’. We compared leadership with management, whilst recognising the interchangeable need (and virtue) for each. Further, whilst our comments suppose that individuals have their own ontological perspective, linked strongly to constructivism, philosophically, we have identified some common attributes. Next, we appreciate how emerging technology will continue to become an integral part in research leadership roles, but more importantly, how radiography leaders collaborate and connect with peers outside our specialist field, namely informatics, computer science and data analytics. Lastly, we consider building teams, approaching teamwork and why this should be considered at both a national and international level. More importantly, we recognise that leaders in radiography research seek out clinical partners in anticipation of building large scale projects that have clinical significance. Overall, the perception of ‘what’ or ‘who’ a leader is will inevitably be driven not only from a metaphysical position, but how it continues to be perceived within the profession.