Education and Training Programmes

In all countries, the initial impetus for the start of activities seems to have come from the corporatist learning sessions held by volunteer practitioners. As a result, there are few official records of these budding grassroots activities. For example, in Japan, the first such event was a study group held in 2009 at the initiative of several practitioners who were practicing at a research university and who were acquainted with each other. This was two years before the inauguration of a large-scale project introduced under the policy of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).¹ Since then, an annual two-day conference² was introduced every year, along with regular training for newcomers. In Singapore, at Nanyang Technological University (NTU),³ which boasts an emerging status among the world’s leading research institutions, study groups for practitioners within the university are now a leading activity. In India, with support from the Wellcome Trust, an annual conference has been launched and its attendance has been increasing year by year. The situation is similar in Malaysia, where the starting point is a meeting of practitioners. On the other hand, the launch of the activities in China and Vietnam recognises the necessity and leadership by the government.

Formation of Communities

When voluntary study groups start to meet on a regular basis, the foundation of the organisation gradually becomes more stable. When there are nation-wide opportunities to gather beyond an institution (e.g. regular congresses), there is a growing demand for the establishment of an organisational body to act as a hub and operating body for these events.

Japan might serve as a primary example of how the community of RMAs gets built in the Asian countries. A voluntary study group among the practitioners in Japan first met in 2009, which grew into an association with a legal entity in 2015.

Among the Asian countries represented in this handbook, Malaysia established a similar organisational body in 2019. In India, there has been a movement to form a national community for practitioners in the form of feasibility study activities such as IRMI⁴ with the support of the Wellcome Trust (Ayyar & Jameel, 2019). Under the leadership of NTU and with the backing of the nearby Australian community ARMS,⁵ Singapore is also in the process of forming a national community. The diversity of Asian countries is evident in several aspects during this chapter, and this process is one of the examples, China and Vietnam are following a slightly different process. In China, a network of practitioners in research institutes related to national science and technology policy has been established, with the professions responsible for the relevant practices being networked. Various data provide an overview of these practitioners, and their activities are happening in a relatively top-down manner. The importance of the profession in Vietnam has also been recognised from the perspective of promoting science and technology policy and has begun to spread.

The Realities of Current Practitioners

Because the RMA history in the Asian region is not as long-lived as compared to Europe and the United States, there is not a wealth of exhaustive data that informs the situation in each country. In this context, data from the large-scale international survey Research Administration as a Profession (RAAAP), conducted within the framework of INORMS (International Network of Research Management Societies), is useful. This section presents the age range and years of experience of RMA practitioners in the six case study countries, based on the preliminary results of the 2022 iteration (Kerridge, Dutta, et al., 2022). Several things should be noted for understanding the low response rate among RMAs in the Asian region. First, the RAAAP survey was distributed through national networks, however, there are not many formal associations in Asia to begin with. Second, the survey was conducted in English, which is not the primary language used among many RMA practitioners in Asia.

Fig. 1.3.1 shows the distribution of years of experience among RMAs in Asia. Overall, the majority of RMAs have less than 10 years’ work experience. Japan and Malaysia had the largest proportion of respondents with less than 10 years’ experience, followed by China, India, and Singapore. The largest group of RMAs has between 5 and 10 years’ experience in Japan and Malaysia, while the majority in China and India have less than 5 years’ experience. There are also veterans with more than 30 years’ experience in some countries. In all countries, 15%–20% of the respondents have been working as RMAs for more than 30 years, indicating that some of them have been working as RMAs (with another job title) even before RMA networks and communities came into existence. The only respondent for Vietnam has 15 years of experience.

Opens in a new window.

Fig. 1.3.1.

Experience Years as RMAs in Asia.

The survey asked what form of employment RMAs had, with four options: Permanent, Fixed, Secondment,⁶ and Other. The result is shown in Fig. 1.3.2. Although the employment arrangement differs from country to country, Permanent is generally regarded as a lifetime employment, which ensures stable conditions of employment. The existence of permanent jobs can also be seen as an expectation that the job is valued in the organisation and that the job will be held for a long time. Looking at the position of six countries, five have permanent positions, with the majority in China, Malaysia, and Singapore. Permanent and fixed positions together represent the majority in all six countries. In addition, Secondments are likely to be those RMAs who concurrently have another job. They are present in certain numbers in China, Japan, and Malaysia. It may be that RMA as a profession is still a relatively new occupation and some are also working as teachers and researchers.

Opens in a new window.

Fig. 1.3.2.

Employment Type of RMAs in Asia.

Fig. 1.3.3 shows the age distribution of RMAs working in Asia. In China, India, and Malaysia, the majority of workers are young, aged 44 and under; they account for approximately three-quarters of the total. Singapore has about half, while Japan has one-third. Conversely, China, Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore have RMAs who are over 55; in Japan and Singapore, they are ranging from one-quarter to one-third. This shows that there is a wide range of age diversity, although most are young but almost no RMAs under 25.

Opens in a new window.

Fig. 1.3.3.

Age Range of RMAs in Asia.

It should be noted that the age distribution needs to be viewed in conjunction with the average age of the country. Among the Asian countries, Japan has by far the highest average age with 48.6 years, followed by China, 38.8 years; Malaysia, 29.2 years; India, 28.1 years; Singapore, 39.7 years; and Vietnam, 31.4 years (World Population Review 2022⁷). On this basis, it can be seen that in Japan and China, this work is engaged in by a relatively large number of younger age groups. On the other hand, in Malaysia, India, Singapore, and Vietnam, relatively older age groups are engaged in this work when the average age is in consideration.

From the above overview, it can be understood that RMAs in Asia is a relatively new profession, and the RAAAP-3 survey data show that the progress is currently ongoing to become established as a new profession in universities. This process is supported the hypothesis to provide meaningful lessons for the regions where RMA positions will develop in the future.

Common Recognition of Skills

In Asian countries with a relatively short RMA history compared to the West, discussions on skills standardisation are still in their infancy. In Japan, skill standards have been developed over the years. Professionals started to play an active role, and it became common to capture their work experience and performance. This is a successful example of a system that combined the top-down policies and bottom-up activities, being modelled after the preceding technology transfer professionals. The situation in Japan may provide inspiration for future research management systems in other Asian countries.

As detailed in the chapters for each country, education and training programs have been implemented at the request of practitioners. In addition, the work of RMAs is not simply limited to pre-award and post-award activities. For example, in Japan, RMA work also includes the identification of research potential through institutional research, technology transfer, intellectual property management, and public relations activities. It is expected that the accumulation of education and training programs conducted in various countries will likely enable the overall systemisation of the skills and knowledge.

Asian Network

As of 2022, in China, Singapore, Malaysia, India, and Japan, there are activities that bring together practitioners on a regular basis. However, there is no international association that oversees all Asian regions, like EARMA in Europe. Instead, connections among key players in the Asian region have been expanding through participation in global initiatives such as INORMS, and those whose membership is internationally such as ARMS, EARMA, NCURA, and SRAI.

In 2021, the INORMS 2021 Hiroshima Congress was held for the first time in Asia. Although it had been postponed for a year by COVID-19 and was held fully online, more than 100 participants from Asia, including China, India, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and Korea participated. The cross-national participation indicated that networking among RMAs in the Asian region will likely become possible in the future, harnessing networking opportunities provided for example through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),⁸ an initiative of Kyoto University⁹ in Japan.