Developing a research strategy: Institution or network?

Collated and edited by Ross Woods, 2026

A research strategy is much broader than simply increasing publication numbers. It is a long-term plan (typically 5–10 years) that answers questions such as:

Comparing a single institution and a wider network, the principles are similar, but the scope, priorities, and governance are quite different. A university research strategy is primarily about building the research capacity and reputation of a single institution, while a research strategy for a network (such as a consortium of universities, colleges, NGOs, or research institutes) is about coordinating independent organizations toward shared goals while respecting their autonomy. One way to think about the difference is that a university asks, "How do we become a better research institution?" A network asks, "How can we achieve more together than we could separately?"

The biggest difference is that a university strategy mainly builds institutional excellence, while a network strategy builds collective capacity. Other differences are as follows:

University Network
One institution Multiple institutions
Internal priorities Shared priorities
Central leadership Collaborative governance
Institutional reputation Collective influence
Internal funding Shared funding opportunities
Staff development Cross-institutional development
Internal infrastructure Shared infrastructure
University KPIs Network-wide outcomes

A university research strategy

A university strategy normally includes the following components.

1. Mission. The mission shapes everything else. Why does the university conduct research? For example:

2. Vision. Where does the university hope to be in 10 years? The vision should be ambitious but achievable. Examples:

3. Strategic research themes. Rather than allowing every topic equally, universities often identify priority themes. These become areas for investment. For example:

4. Research capability. Ask what resources are needed. Many strategies underestimate this section. Examples:

5. Research culture. Excellent research depends on culture, and it is often the hidden factor behind successful universities. Questions include:

6. Funding. Funding priorities should align with strategic themes. A strategy should identify sources such as:

7. Partnerships. Universities rarely work alone. The strategy should define the purpose of partnerships rather than simply listing them. Potential partners include:

8. Research training. Research capacity depends on developing researchers. Typical initiatives include:

9. Knowledge translation. Research should influence practice. Different disciplines emphasise different forms of impact. Possible pathways include:

10. Evaluation. Good strategies avoid relying on publication counts alone. progress using indicators such as:

A research network strategy

Networks require a different emphasis. The challenge is not managing one institution but coordinating many. Instead of asking, “How do we improve our university?” the question becomes, “What can we accomplish collectively?” Additional elements become important.

1. Shared purpose. Every member must understand why the network exists. Without a compelling shared purpose, networks often become inactive. Examples include:

2. Complementary strengths. Different institutions contribute different capabilities. The strategy should map these strengths and encourage collaboration rather than duplication. One may provide:

3. Governance. Networks require agreed decision-making, and governance is generally more complex than in a single institution. This includes:

4. Shared infrastructure. Pooling resources can reduce costs and increase access. Possible shared resources include:

5. Collaborative projects. Instead of isolated research, networks often organise flagship projects involving multiple institutions. These projects build both capacity and visibility. For example:

6. Researcher mobility. Networks often encourage visiting scholars, staff exchanges, joint supervision, doctoral exchanges or shared workshops. These activities help spread expertise across member institutions.

7. Joint funding. Many funding bodies favour collaborative proposals. A network strategy can identify:

8. Shared publication strategy. Instead of each institution publishing independently, a shared publication strategy can substantially increase visibility. Networks can coordinate:

A strategic hierarchy

For large systems, it is often helpful to think in layers to ensure that individual projects contribute to broader institutional goals.

Research Vision
│
Research Strategy
│
Strategic Themes
│
Research Programs
│
Research Projects
│
Publications
│
Societal Impact

A particularly effective model for research networks

For networks that include many smaller institutions—such as colleges, seminaries, or regional universities—a hub-and-spoke model can work well. A central hub provides shared services (research training, statistical support, ethics guidance, grant development, publication mentoring, data repositories), while member institutions lead projects aligned with their local strengths. This balances consistency with institutional autonomy and allows smaller partners to participate in research that would be difficult to undertake independently.

For example, in a network of theological colleges, one institution might specialise in biblical studies, another in missiology, another in educational research, and another in leadership. Multi-institutional projects could draw on all of these strengths while the central hub coordinates methodology, ethics, data management, and publication support.

Such a strategy shifts the focus from measuring each institution in isolation to asking whether the network is creating knowledge, developing researchers, and producing societal impact more effectively than its members could achieve alone.

For the kind of research collaboration in coordinated doctoral research and publication, this network-oriented approach could be especially powerful because it enables shared supervision, complementary expertise, and coordinated publication pipelines while allowing each participating institution to retain its own identity and priorities.

Money and institutional autonomy

The technical aspects of developing a research strategy are relatively straightforward; the political and organizational aspects are usually much harder. Many research networks do not fail because they lack good researchers—they fail because they underestimate governance, incentives, and trust.

One useful principle is this: “A successful network should make participation more attractive than going it alone.” If institutions feel they are giving up more than they gain, the network will gradually become inactive.

Universities are naturally protective of their independence and institutional autonomy. They have their own governing councils, strategic plans, budgets, branding, and academic priorities. Few vice-chancellors or presidents want an external body telling them what research they should pursue.

For that reason, the network should rarely direct research. Instead, it should enable it. That is a subtle but important distinction. Rather than saying: "These are the projects everyone must undertake." the network says: "These are opportunities, resources, and collaborations available to members who choose to participate." Participation becomes voluntary rather than compulsory.

Money is probably the greatest source of conflict. Consider a collaborative grant involving five institutions. Questions quickly arise:

If these issues are not addressed before funding is received, disagreements can become very difficult to resolve. Consequently, many mature research consortia establish standard agreements covering:

Negotiating these once is much easier than renegotiating them for every project.

Reputation and credit

Academics are rewarded through recognition. Institutions are also rewarded through rankings, publications, grants, and public reputation. Consequently, a network needs to ensure that success is shared rather than centralized. If one university consistently receives the publicity while others do much of the work, resentment is likely to grow. Similarly, if one institution does most of the administration without recognition or support, that can also become unsustainable.

Unequal capacity

Most networks include institutions of very different sizes. If expectations are identical for every member, smaller institutions may withdraw because they cannot contribute at the same scale. Consider these differences:

Large university Small college
Hundreds of researchers A handful of researchers
Dedicated grants office None
Statistical support Limited
PhD programmes Few or none
Large research budget Very limited funds

A better approach is differentiated participation. Contribution does not have to mean equal financial investment. One institution might contribute laboratory facilities. Another might contribute field sites. Another might provide local community access. Another might contribute specialist expertise.

Avoiding central control

Some networks evolve into a bureaucracy that attempts to control everything. Ironically, this often reduces collaboration.

A healthier model is to think of the network as providing services. Instead of asking: "How do we supervise member institutions?" ask: "What services make researchers more successful?" Researchers will usually use valuable services without needing to be compelled. Examples include:

Competition within collaboration

Another reality is that member institutions may also compete. For example, they may compete for:

A realistic strategy acknowledges this rather than pretending it does not exist. One way to manage this is to focus the network on areas where collaboration creates value that no single institution could readily achieve. In those areas, cooperation has a clear advantage. Examples include:

Trust as the real currency

Many discussions focus on budgets, governance, or strategic plans. Those matter, but in practice, long-term collaboration is often sustained by trust. Without trust, even a well-funded network can become fragmented. With trust, institutions are often willing to collaborate despite differences in size, resources, or priorities. Trust grows when members see that:

A different philosophy

This leads to a philosophy that differs from many institutional strategies. A university strategy often asks: "How can we strengthen our institution?" A network strategy might ask instead: "How can we strengthen every member while strengthening the network?"

That changes the role of the coordinating body. Rather than becoming another layer of management, it becomes a facilitator of collective success. If members consistently feel that participation helps them achieve goals they could not easily accomplish alone, concerns about autonomy become much easier to manage because the network is seen as creating opportunities rather than imposing constraints.

Particularly relevant to coordinated PhD cohorts is that the network itself does not necessarily need to own grants, employ researchers, or control projects. It can instead provide common standards, training, mentoring, and coordination, while each participating institution retains ownership of its own people, finances, and research. That separation of coordination from institutional authority often reduces many of the political tensions you identified.

References

Clark, B.R. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.

Connell, H. (2005) University Research Management: Meeting the Institutional Challenge. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Kerridge, S., Poli, S. and Yang-Yoshihara, M. (eds.) (2023) The Emerald Handbook of Research Management and Administration Around the World. Leeds: Emerald Publishing.

OECD (2003) Governance of Public Research: Toward Better Practices. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2005) University Research Management: Developing Research in New Institutions. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2023) Who Really Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice? Developing a Culture of Research Engagement. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Shields, R. (2015) 'Operationalizing network analysis for higher education research', in Huisman, J., de Boer, H., Dill, D.D. and Souto-Otero, M. (eds.) The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 209–224.

Whitley, R. (2000) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Additional references

Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2008) 'Collaborative governance in theory and practice', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), pp. 543–571.

Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C. and Stone, M.M. (2006) 'The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature', Public Administration Review, 66(s1), pp. 44–55.

Keast, R., Brown, K. and Mandell, M. (2007) 'Getting the right mix: Unpacking integration meanings and strategies', International Public Management Journal, 10(1), pp. 9–33.

Provan, K.G. and Kenis, P. (2008) 'Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), pp. 229–252.

Salmi, J. (2009) The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities. Washington, DC: World Bank.

CC BY-NC-ND
This work is released under a CC BY-NC-ND license, which means that you are free to do with it as you please as long as you (1) properly attribute it, (2) do not use it for commercial gain, and (3) do not create derivative works. Link
Disclaimer: Artificial Intelligence (AI) was used in some parts of this book. If AI plagiarized your content, contact the author with evidence to initiate changes.