Main Body
6 Building a Community of Practice Among Research Managers Supporting Mentorship Research
By Julie M. Hau, Jada Holmes, Krystina Karcz, and Melissa McDaniels
Introduction
This chapter explores the success of creating a community of practice (CoP), which involved gathering research managers from the 11 National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) research teams. First, we provide an overview of research manager definitions and roles. Second, we share the process and outcomes of our research manager CoP, highlighting insights from the literature to underscore the importance of research manager contributions to individual research studies and the NRMN Phase II research community. Third, we explore how intentional leadership structures and formative assessment strategies lead to successful CoPs. Much of the design for our CoP was grounded in Wenger-Trayner and colleagues’ (2023) descriptions of the domain, the community, and the practice.
Research Managers and Their Roles
Research managers play critical roles in the success of research projects. Though there is no standard definition of a research manager (Poli et al., 2023) and they may go by alternative job titles like research or administrative officer (Shelley, 2010), we here collectively refer to them as research managers. Research managers usually assume roles in leadership, management, or support research-related activities (Kerridge & Scott, 2018; Shelley, 2010). Some research managers, for example, may lead a research team’s proposal preparation or reporting of efforts to funders (Acker et al., 2019), while others may see themselves more as counselors or coaches, offering support to the principal investigator of their research project. Research managers regularly serve as the point-person for administrative activities (e.g., finances, training, and project management) and often supervise staff involved with collecting data, monitoring IRB compliance, and conducting research. In addition to their roles on their individual research teams, NRMN Phase II research managers played a pivotal role in gathering and sharing common measures data (for more information on synergizing research and communicating with research managers, see Chapter 5).
Research managers often hold advanced degrees (Acker et al., 2019; Kerridge & Scott, 2018; Poli et al., 2023; Shelley, 2010), which is complemented by practical experience, on-the-job training, and lifelong learning. Their roles require a blend of specialized technical skills like research methodology, data analysis, and participant recruitment strategies, as well as managerial skills such as effective communication and conflict resolution (Shykhnenko, 2023). Ultimately, research managers need to be flexible to meet the needs of the principal investigator and the project. To support research managers, the NRMN Coordination Center team aimed to connect them with others performing the same or similar roles. One way to achieve this goal was to implement a CoP (Abedini et al., 2021), which helps foster a strong sense of self-worth and connectedness amongst research managers (Hemmasi & Csanda, 2009) while simultaneously improving job performance (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023).
Communities of Practice
According to Wenger-Trayner and colleagues, “Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023). CoPs facilitate learning, collaboration, and professional development through both formal and informal interactions. They provide a shared space where professionals with common interests, goals, and knowledge can exchange collective learning and wisdom (Seguin et al., 2023).
There are three elements of CoPs—domain, community, and practice (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023). Domain represents the motivator for individuals to be in the CoP; what are the shared interests, job duties, professional commitments, and identities. Community refers to the individuals and relationships that make up the CoP as well as the work that needs to be done to cultivate commitment to one another. Practice refers to the challenges and opportunities CoP members face in holding their professional roles, as well as the learning and growth they hope to achieve. Later in this chapter, we will illustrate how our nurturing of these three elements was reflected in the topics discussed during meetings of the Research Manager CoP.
Envisioning and Launching a Community of Practice
As mentioned in Chapter 5, we began holding regular one-on-one meetings with research managers early in the grant period. During these conversations, we identified that managers were facing similar challenges, while also recognizing the diversity in their career stages (early-career, mid-career and advanced-career) and disciplinary backgrounds. Recognizing this as an opportunity for research managers to mentor and learn from each other, we proposed a virtual CoP designed to provide additional learning, collaboration, and professional development. At the same time, it aimed to foster a sense of belonging within the NRMN research community and to provide additional opportunities to strengthen professional skills and identity (Nganga et al., 2020).
At the beginning of year 3, we began preparing for the NRMN research manager CoP by conducting a survey and holding a meeting for the research managers to identify if and how they would benefit from engaging in a CoP. We explored what skills and talents individual research managers had by asking the question, “What are your superpowers?” Responses included writing for digital media platforms, using REDCap (a secure web application for building and managing online surveys and databases), multi-tasking, listening, and thinking critically. Topics they aspired to learn about included things like data visualization, public speaking, and data cleaning practices. Research managers also communicated ways they could connect with the NRMN Coordination Center and each other, such as email, virtual meetings and presentations (both structured and unstructured), online resource sharing via a Google Site, and online asynchronous communication beyond email. Gathering this information allowed us to identify sources of knowledge that could be tapped into for CoP meetings moving forward.
We hosted our first CoP meeting in the middle of year 3 and continued through our no-cost extension year for a total of 21 meetings. Most meetings occurred during the academic year every other month with hiatuses over the summers. Research managers were geographically dispersed making a virtual CoP more accessible (Abedini et al., 2021). The number of research managers participating in each meeting ranged from 4 to 10, reflecting the natural flow of studies as managers joined or transitioned off projects over the course of the grant. Additionally, two members of our NRMN Coordination Center also joined meetings to facilitate. During these CoP meetings, research managers shared their expertise while collaboratively exploring mentorship research and research processes, resulting in a meaningful collective impact.
The CoP served as a space to address social isolation (Lardier et al., 2024; McLoughlin et al., 2018), especially since CoP meetings traversed the months of the COVID-19 pandemic, a period that saw an increase in organizing and participating in CoPs (Gómez & Suárez, 2021). Since there was typically one research manager per research team, having a space to share common challenges and joys of the job served an essential function. By meeting regularly as a CoP, research managers built meaningful relationships that enabled collaborations toward common goals—such as facilitating the collective impact of mentorship interventions and promoting their own professional development. As the meetings progressed, we continuously sought iterative feedback, including whether research managers wished to continue meeting, mirroring the feedback-driven approach we applied across other aspects of the NRMN Coordination Center work (for more information on continuous feedback and communication with research teams, see Chapter 3). As the projects approached their completion, we reduced CoP frequency to twice a semester and extended meetings into our NRMN Coordination Center’s no-cost extension year due to demand from the research managers.
Topics of Focus for Community of Practice Meetings
Each meeting had a central focus aligned with one of the three CoP elements of the Wenger-Trayner (2023) model. While topics shifted across the 21 meetings, each meeting had discussions that included aspects that naturally touched on all three elements. Figure 8 illustrates the structural elements as applied to the Research Manager CoP meetings.
Figure 8. CoP meeting topics as aligned with CoP elements in the Wenger-Trayner model
Each meeting centered on a primary focus aligned with one of the three CoP elements, though discussions often naturally touched on aspects of all three.
The Domain
Topics related to the domain element focused on professional motivation and identity. The topics covered during these discussions included: starting your year off right, goal setting, a day in the life of a research manager, and leveraging professional development opportunities. These topics served as touch points for research managers to explore their goals, develop their professional identity, and sustain their development during and beyond the grant. During these meetings, research managers would rely on each other for mentoring and advice. Examples of suggestions given were for research managers to connect with professional organizations or engage in formalized goal setting. For more information on specific meeting topics and facilitated activities and discussions, see Appendix 13: Topics of Research Manager Community of Practice Meetings.
The Community
Topics related to the community element emphasized the power the collective had in terms of creating community, networking, and building relationships. Each CoP meeting began with an opening icebreaker activity to foster engagement. Several also featured additional activities designed to strengthen collaboration and relationship building. More specifically, these activities included virtual coffee hours, networking sessions, and reflecting on having attended professional conferences that were relevant to our NRMN research community. Compared to meetings focusing on the other elements, sessions on the community element focused more pointedly on building community through the collective application of each research manager’s strengths.
The Practice
Topics related to the practice element emerged as the most common focus across meetings. Many of the meetings were timely as they contained topics and activities that reflected the progression of the grant cycle. These meetings occurred across all grant stages, and they focused on developing skills required to support their research teams, such as data visualization, project management, and data dissemination. Research managers actively applied skills gained from these meetings in their professional roles, as demonstrated by their collaboration in collecting the large common dataset, delivery of professional presentations, authorship of research articles, and contributions to reporting efforts.
Infrastructure & Continuous Quality Improvement
Effective CoPs benefit greatly from strong facilitation (Peñarroja et al., 2019). Studies also emphasize the significance of leadership (Hemmasi & Csanda, 2009) and attendee empowerment (Kirkman et al., 2011) in their success. Drawing on the NRMN Coordination Center’s prior experience running mentorship-focused CoPs, we leveraged the in-house expertise of two team members to design and facilitate our CoP meetings (House et al., 2020). On some occasions, CoP members also led meetings, facilitated sessions, and presented ideas. Asynchronous facilitation tools, such as Padlet, Jamboard, and Zoom Polls, supported our virtual meeting facilitation and collection of resources that we shared on a research manager portal which was linked to our NRMN Research Community Google Site (see Chapter 3). This portal allowed us to document shared work and keep records of our community resources.
We used formative assessments to continuously improve our CoP efforts, which included regularly conducting iterative needs assessments via synchronous and asynchronous modalities. Synchronous needs assessments occurred during CoP meetings, where research managers gave anecdotal feedback that these meetings supported their job duty performance. Asynchronous assessments were carried out through surveys. This opportunity for feedback helped foster trust, collaboration, and a sense of collegiality among the community. In addition to continuous quality improvement, the feedback allowed us to identify future meeting topics, as well as determine the best frequency and timing for sessions.
Conclusion
The successes and challenges of this project—the “lessons learned”—may be applicable to other coordination centers considering establishing CoPs. Because research managers voluntarily chose to participate in the CoP, we were less affected by common barriers to participation identified in the literature, such as lack of time or motivation (Abedini et al., 2021). In addition, the CoP was active during the COVID-19 pandemic, which likely affected the participants’ need for community, as well as the impact the community had on them. All of these factors should be considered when applying these lessons in other contexts.
Lessons Learned
- Involve all community members in decision making. Implementing an iterative needs assessment approach can enhance buy-in by creating an inclusive space where participants feel their voices are heard and honored.
- Manage both content and process. The “what” or content that was discussed was shaped by the community. The topics we selected were generated by the community. In addition, we attended to “how” the community interacted with one another. By attending to content and process, not only were topics covered across domain, practice, and community elements, but special attention was paid to the relationships among research managers.
- Assign facilitators for community meetings. To support the infrastructure of a CoP (e.g., polling, logistical tasks including slide deck creation, topic selection, guiding the discussion), at least one facilitator is recommended.
- Consider logistics and address evolving needs. Facilitators polled research managers regarding the frequency and duration of meetings. In this way CoP members were the ones to make decisions regarding logistics. As the grant began the sunsetting process, research managers requested meetings with less frequency and shorter duration.
- Encourage peer mentorship. Peer mentorship is a powerful way to learn, connect, and grow. Encouraging peer mentorship among research managers allows them to support each other in skill-building and problem solving.
- Consider collecting research data on your CoP. Anecdotal evidence from our CoP highlighted the potential effectiveness of bringing together individuals from geographically dispersed, large-scale research consortiums—demonstrating the collective impact collaboration can achieve. This evidence will add to the limited research that exists on CoPs (Abedini et al., 2021).
- Tend to building relationships in the community. Focusing on building relationships among our research managers ultimately led to them supporting each other.
Acknowledgments
Research managers played pivotal roles not only in leading their independent NRMN Phase II research studies, but also in contributing to the overall success of the CoP. We appreciate their contributions and thank them for advancing the research and practice of mentorship.
Please see the NRMN Phase II Data Site, which includes a list of all research team members, including research managers.
We appreciate the contribution of Amy Childs in assisting with the creation of the first draft of Figure 8 and Emma Dums for creating the final version.
