The Implications of Contextual Realities on Career Development: The Specific Case of University Research Managers and Administrators in Small Island States

Abstract

Career development for university research managers and administrators (RMAs) is inherently challenging in small island states. In this article, we argue that by acquiring career adaptability resources, university RMAs can address their career development needs even in contexts with a restricted labor market. We do this by first identifying the factors that shape the career development prospects of university RMAs. Subsequently, we present evidence of how university RMAs in small island states may pursue their career development goals by redefining their roles according to the contextual realities. Career adaptability theory helps us to explore how this redefinition occurs, particularly since adaptability arises from a combination of personality traits (self-regulation) and careful interventions that can build adaptability resources. We use the knowledge from career adaptability theory to identify a number of implications for RMAs, universities, counselors, and professional associations to address career development issues within restricted small island contexts.

Keywords

research management profession research managers and administrators universities small Island states career development career adaptability career entrenchment context

The digital revolution and the global economic crisis that have largely characterized the 21st century so far (Savickas, 2011a) have made the labor market more volatile and careers more diverse (Biemann, Zacher, & Feldman, 2012). Consequently, employees have increasingly become required to engage actively in the construction of their professional lives in order to build resilience in a rapidly changing labor market (Nota, Ginevra, Santilli, & Soresi, 2014). This active engagement postulates greater adaptability and self-direction (Hirschi, Herrmann, & Keller, 2015) by employees for their career development, although very often career counselors play an important role in providing the necessary guidance and in suggesting adequate interventions (Jiang, 2016). Moreover, career adaptability is contingent upon a dynamic interaction between the individual and the environment (Hirschi, 2009; Tolentino, Garcia, et al., 2014). This perspective of career development is based on a contextual approach and contrasts with the more traditional view that career development is largely based on chronological age (Super, 1990).

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the career development of university Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs) and their ability to adapt within a small island context. Such context is often characterized by restricted job mobility for the highly specialized profession of RMAs, exacerbated by a limited number of universities. This article adopts the career adaptability construct as promulgated by Savickas (1997, 2002, 2005) and Savickas and Porfeli (2012). This construct provides a suitable theoretical framework to explore the RMA’s capability to adapt within the relatively restricted labor markets of small island states.

This article is organized as follows: We first present a review of the relevant literature on career adaptability as the underlying theoretical framework of this article. This is followed by a brief review of the major developments in the research management profession and an analysis of the factors that shape the career development prospects of university RMAs. Knowledge about RMAs is subsequently examined within the idiosyncratic context of small island states, in order to evaluate the extent and manner in which the role of university RMAs is redefined according to the contextual realities of small island states. Finally, we use the knowledge from career adaptability theory to identify a number of implications to address career development issues within the restricted small island context.

Before proceeding further, we must make it clear that defining small island states has never been straightforward (see Armstrong & Read, 2003; Crossley, 2008; Sultana, 2006; Thorhallsson, 2006). It is not the scope of this article to discuss definitional issues of small island states and smallness. However, for the purpose of this article, we refer to small island states as those independent and sovereign states that are islands with a population that does not exceed 1 million 500,000 inhabitants. Studies on small states and islands gained momentum in several thematic areas varying from education (Baldacchino & Farrugia, 2002; Crossley, Bray, & Packer, 2011), economics (Briguglio, Cordina, Farrugia, & Vella, 2009; Cordina, 2004), and integration (Magnússon, 2013; Thorhallsson, 2013). However, there is a dearth in studies on career development in small island states. This article is intended to initiate a discussion that will contribute toward integrating small island states into the realms of career development theory and to hopefully lead to new empirical studies that will generate thinking about career development in alternative contexts.

Career Adaptability

In recent years, the career adaptability construct is deemed to have provided scholars with the relevant theoretical framework to explain employee career development and well-being (Johnston, 2016). This framework sees its origins in Savickas (1997, 2002, 2005) and Savickas and Porfeli (2012), who argued that career adaptability, rather than career maturity, is the central construct in career development theory. Savickas (1997) defined career adaptability as “the readiness to cope with the predictable tasks of preparing for and participating in the work role and with the unpredictable adjustments prompted by the changes in work and work conditions” (p. 254). This construct contrasts with the earlier career development construct where the focus was on the career maturity or readiness of individuals to make decisions in the labor market (Chan et al., 2015).

As the nature of careers started changing and the employment contexts became more turbulent, career paths have become more blurred and uncertain (Coetzee & Stoltz, 2015). The career adaptability construct has shifted the focus toward the individuals’ psychosocial resources to cope and successfully manage occupational challenges, uncertainties, transitions, and work traumas (Uy, Chan, Sam, Ho, & Chernyshenko, 2015; Weigl et al., 2010), including those imposed by the context (Brown, Brimrose, Barnes, & Hughes, 2012; Coetzee & Stoltz, 2015). Accordingly, scholars argued that individuals have started adopting more boundaryless mind-sets to their careers (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012), meaning that employees have become lifelong learners and are able to adapt continually to evolving work environments (Öncel, 2014; Savickas, 2013; Stoltz, Wolff, Monroe, Farris, & Mazahreh, 2013).

This psychosocial perspective of career development has been rather groundbreaking and wide reaching, since it asserts that individuals need not be passive in the face of contextual constraints, but rather they can be agents of change of their own destiny within their current circumstances (Tolentino, Garcia, et al., 2014). Proactive individuals with a high propensity to adapt are likely to seek and successfully identify opportunities that are congruent with their specific needs. According to Savickas (2011b), this adaptation of individuals to diverse work experiences emanates from four dimensions of career adaptability, namely, concern (planning and being planful), control (being decisive and taking decisions), curiosity (being inquisitive and exploring), and confidence (problem-solving and being efficacious; Hirschi et al., 2015). These dimensions are used by individuals to explore their work environment and to make adaptive transitions.

Although the majority of research about career adaptability is closely associated with change and with how people deal with it in times of job insecurity, job loss, unemployment, and economic crisis (Hamtiaux, Houssemand, & Vrignaud, 2013; Klehe, Zikic, Van Vianen, & De Pater, 2011), a niche group of researchers has viewed career adaptability from the perspective of employees who are still following a rather stable career path within the same organization and career fields (Biemann, Fasang, & Grunow, 2011; Guan et al., 2013; Ng & Feldman, 2007; Tolentino, Garcia, et al., 2014; Tolentino, Sedoglavich, Lu, Garcia, & Restubog, 2014). These employees are likely to experience career entrenchment, which is defined by Carson, Carson, Roe, and Phillips (1996) as the employees’ feelings of “immobility resulting from substantial economic and psychological investments in a career that make change difficult” (p. 274). This concept consists of three dimensions. First, perceived career investments, which involve the employees’ perception that by changing jobs or careers, they may lose the benefits accrued from their career investments over time (Carson, Carson, & Bedeian, 1995). Second, limited career alternatives defined by Carson, Carson, and Bedeian (1995) as the employees’ perceptions that no new career opportunities exist for them. Third, emotional costs, being the perceived socioemotional risks that employees might experience should they decide to leave an established job or career, including loss of professional networks and close friendships (Carson & Carson, 1997).

According to Zacher, Ambiel, and Noronha (2015), career adaptability is negatively related to career entrenchment. The more employees possess psychosocial resources that make them more adaptable in the work environment (i.e., career adaptability), the less worried they are likely to feel about the socioemotional implications of career challenges. This view suggests that individuals possess psychosocial self-regulatory competencies (such as being proactive and flexible) that shape career adaptive strategies and behaviors at work (Brown et al., 2012). This implies that the level of adaptability depends on the individual personality and the capacity of self-regulation. However, Bocciardi, Caputo, Fregonese, Langher, and Sartori (2017) maintain that the career adaptability resources, such as concern, control, curiosity, and confidence, are competencies that can also be acquired. Therefore, individuals and organizations may engage in activities through which adaptability resources can be developed through training, coaching, and counseling interventions (Johnston, Luciano, Maggiori, Ruch, & Rossier, 2013; Potgieter, 2012; Savickas, 2005).

The view that combines the personality traits with career interventions to develop career adaptability resources provides a framework for understanding the cognitive and affective factors that enable university RMAs in small island states to cope within restricted labor markets. The small island state context can be associated with the concept of career entrenchment for university RMAs since the restricted labor market and the insularity in small island states offer limited alternatives for career development of RMAs. In this article, we explore the manner in which the university RMAs in small island states adapt and redefine their roles according to the inherent contextual characteristics. We first look briefly at the development of the research management profession and the role of university RMAs.

Development of the Research Management Profession and the Role of University RMAs

The past 60 years have witnessed the rise of the research management profession and the literature contributions surrounding it. To date, no single all-encompassing definition has yet been produced to reflect the wide spectrum of research management in its entirety. However, we consider the following definition as the most appropriate for this article:

Research management refers to the duties and responsibilities commensurate with the successful implementation of the research strategy and its daily operational implications, the control and co-ordination of specific research projects, their quality and related tasks of sponsor management. (Bushaway, 2007, p. 142)

This definition incorporates a strategic, an operational, and a monitoring side to the profession, all of which are nearly almost omnipresent within any university context (Carnegie & Tuck, 2010).

Scholars acknowledge that over the years, research management has become a profession in its own right (see Kirkland, 2005; Shambrook, Roberts, & Triscari, 2011; Shelley, 2010). The rapid growth of government investment in research during and post–World War II in the United States has become “the catalyst for the need for research administrators” (Beasley, 2006, p. 11), since a group of professionals was required to support the scientific research. As universities started integrating research into their academic mission, they became an important cradle for both research and the research management profession. Although RMAs may work outside universities, such as in research funding agencies, universities absorb the majority of these professionals (Derrick & Nickson, 2014). Hence, the discussion in this article focuses primarily on university settings, although we do not exclude that our findings may also be relevant to nonuniversity environments.

Factors That Shape the Career Development Prospects of University RMAs

Over time, the role of RMAs has evolved from a rather reactive one to a more proactive one in which RMAs become key participants in the research process (Lintz, 2008). For instance, RMAs nowadays do not only review research proposals but actively contribute toward creating them. As research processes increasingly rely on the role of RMAs as a distinct group of professionals, several factors that shape the career development prospects of RMAs can be identified. We discuss these factors briefly in the following paragraphs.

Professional Profile and Range of Skills

The identity of RMAs has traditionally been a key point of contention for various motives. First, a formal standard professional profile of an RMA that serves as a role model and benchmark seems to be lacking. Trindade and Agostinho (2014, p. 39) argue that research managers “appear as a continuously evolving group of professionals whose identity is somewhat fragmented, even to themselves.” This fragmentation is often attributed to a second point of contention pertaining to the range of roles and skills of RMAs. In different instances, RMAs may have to master the roles of managers, lawyers, financiers, and policy makers, while assisting researchers in carrying out research. A range of specialist skills is also required. For instance, RMAs require good communication skills when mediating between researchers and funders; a good grasp of the research and administrative processes when compiling research proposals; and a good understanding of the relevant legal, financial, and academic fields, particularly during the implementation of research projects (Connell, 2004; Landen & McAllister, 2006). RMAs may therefore see new career development opportunities opening up for them, as they acquire new skills and engage in new roles during their career.

Point of Entry Into the Research Management Profession

The wide range of skills required to carry out an RMA job also means that there is no single point of entry into the profession. For example, a lawyer in a university legal office may be required to advise on the legal implications of research activities, thus joining the research management profession rather unconsciously. The same can be said for a finance or a human resources manager who may specialize in the support of research activities rather than on the entire financial or human resource management issues of the university. These and other examples of specialists joining the research management profession indirectly are common occurrence (Whitchurch, 2012). Horizontal growth opportunities for RMAs open up through this borrowing of skills from other professions, since career development extends beyond the same discipline toward a specialized profession, that of research management.

Academic Qualifications and Recognition

Academic qualifications and recognition represent another factor that may shape the career development prospects of RMAs. At an administrative level, a diploma or a first degree may be enough for an employee to be assigned research management duties. But at more senior levels, a second degree or even a doctorate is not uncommon. Whitchurch (2012) argues that “although a doctorate is not necessarily required for the job, it may be regarded as the ‘magic dust’ that could provide a turnkey in offering credibility, gaining entry to academic networks and developing their career” (p. 88). The more RMAs possess characteristics that are similar to those of academics/researchers, such as holding doctorate degrees, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and having experience in research funding, the more the research management profession gets closer to the academic field (Shelley, 2010). Advanced qualifications widen the potential for horizontal career development of RMAs within universities, since a doctorate and any related publications may provide opportunities for academic careers within universities, in addition to administrative/managerial careers.

Although RMAs may join the profession at different levels, the path toward becoming a research management professional has so far been based more on practical experience rather than on academic education. Indeed, most academic courses in research management require that the prospective candidates would already possess some relevant experience in a research support office. This practice gives rise to potential vertical career development of RMAs. By getting a recognized qualification in research management in addition to their initial experience, RMAs can exploit novel career development opportunities that may arise within the same organization in which they are already employed.

Stakeholders’ Perceptions

Finally, career development for university RMAs also depends on the stakeholders’ perceptions about the role of RMAs. Such stakeholders include academics and researchers, other supporting functions within a university (such as finance or legal departments), university senior management (including directors, rectors, prorectors, and university governing bodies), governments, and the general public. Incorrect perceptions about the profession are not uncommon among these stakeholders. Green and Langley (2009) claim that most RMAs feel that their role in universities is not well understood by both academic and nonacademic stakeholders. In the United States, surveys conducted among RMAs reveal that “research administrators perceive this work to be often done in a stressful environment with little recognition from their non-administrative colleagues” (Shambrook et al., 2011, p. 20).

Green and Langley (2009) argue that, although research activity is considered to be a key indicator of institutional performance, few universities recognize that RMAs with their direct contact with funders and researchers are best placed to monitor and influence income streams and the performance of universities. Lintz (2008) suggests that a key cornerstone in research management is to challenge incorrect perceptions by transforming the job of RMAs into one that brings them closer to researchers and their needs. These observations suggest that career development of university RMAs depends on the RMAs’ ability to portray the true nature of their job and to minimize the expectations gap with the key stakeholders.

Redefining the Role of University RMAs in a Small Island State University

After exploring salient characteristics of the research management profession and the factors that shape career development prospects, we now analyze some of the idiosyncratic characteristics of small island states and draw a number of observations about the manner in which university RMAs in small island states adapt their roles according to the contextual realities. We base our arguments not only on the characteristics of small island states and on the roles of university RMAs but also on the insights generated from the career adaptability theory, particularly Savickas’s (2011b) four dimensions of career adaptability.

Job Mobility and Specialization

The presence of universities in small island states is crucial when studying the role of RMAs. Although some of the smallest island states, such as Barbados, Malta, and the West Indies, have at least one university, it is unsurprising to observe that other small island states do not have universities at all. Where one university exists, however, it is often publicly funded and strives to offer a comprehensive range of programs intended to address the socioeconomic and educational needs of that small island state. Where more than one university exists, such as in Iceland and in Cyprus, there is often a big disparity between the primary, flagship (publicly funded) university, and the other (typically private) smaller universities. In such contexts, university RMAs face limited opportunities for job mobility.

Baldacchino (as cited in Sultana, 2006, p. 30) refers to the limited opportunities as “ports of call” and compares them to ships that come to harbor from time to time and do not stay long. Sultana (2006) argues that the principle “Make hay while the sun shines” “has particular relevance to citizens of small [island] states, and influences the approach to occupational choice as well as to career management throughout the life span” (p. 30). These conditions restrict (if not altogether remove) career development opportunities among different universities for RMAs. In addition, the research landscape in small island states may not be fully developed in the same manner as in larger countries (such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, or Scandinavian countries) heightening the career development restrictions that university RMAs face in small island states.

However, within these contexts, we argue that university RMAs seek alternative avenues through which they can project a career development path within the same organization (university), since career development across organizations might not be an option. One avenue suggests that specialization in small island states is more likely to involve breadth rather than depth. This is because the limited range of human talent as well as the limited available resources may restrict professionals from specializing in one thematic area. A university RMA in a small island state may have to support academics and researchers in a range of tasks that in larger universities may be segregated among a number of RMAs. This redefinition in the roles of RMAs and its extent is dependent on the personality of RMAs and the degree of individual openness to new avenues and modes of working. It evokes the confidence dimension of career adaptability as proposed by Savickas (2011b), as RMAs seek to transform what seems to be a heavy restriction on their ability to specialize into an opportunity. Breadth specialization means that a university RMA supports the researcher over the entire research process and may build a strong long-term relationship with the researcher. This opportunity would have been very remote had the RMA been involved in just one aspect of the entire research process, as is more often the case in larger research support offices.

Multifunctionalism

Multifunctionalism is another common characteristic of university RMAs in small island states, emerging from breadth specialization. University RMAs may adopt multifunctional approaches in response to limited resources and time available to handle tasks that could have otherwise been handled by alternative (yet unavailable) human resources. Undoubtedly, multifunctionalism may be the cause of undue stress on university RMAs, who are often subject to role overload emerging from increasing and unreasonable workload that is unsupported by available resources (Fisher, 2014). In addition, role overload could potentially contribute toward another stressor, that of role ambiguity, because the differences between the stakeholders’ perceptions and actual roles of RMAs may potentially add new tasks to an RMA portfolio, which may result into an overload of work (Katsapis, 2012).

However, in spite of these possible negative implications, multifunctionalism may lead to a redefinition of the roles of university RMAs in their quest for career development. In a context where alternative opportunities are limited, university RMAs may get used to work hard but at the same time get motivated by their capabilities to handle multiple tasks diligently. Although multifunctionalism depends significantly on the individual’s readiness to embrace the challenge of multitasking, universities may contribute toward building RMAs’ adaptability through careful interventions. Universities need to acknowledge the RMAs personal effort and can contribute toward their career development through adequate training, recognition, and compensation, thus contributing toward building RMAs control and confidence to face the challenges emanating from restricted resources.

Training, Qualifications, and Career Paths

Earlier in this article, we argued that the qualifications of RMAs provide opportunities for both horizontal and vertical development. Moreover, training and retraining offer higher opportunities for RMAs to learn how to handle multiple and dynamic tasks (Temples, Simons, & Atkinson, 2012). Therefore, one could argue that within small island states, qualifications and continuous training are key for career development, since they equip university RMAs with the right skills and potential to be multifunctional. Concern and curiosity are probably the two dimensions of career adaptability that best explain why RMAs resort to training and qualifications to adapt in a small island context. The search for continuous training and additional qualifications derives from RMAs’ inquisitive traits and from the recognition of the need to be planful and proactive. Yet universities’ support toward RMAs to acquire training and qualifications can be essential in building confidence and control in the RMAs’ career development path. Typical training that is relevant for RMAs includes that in project management, proposal writing, budgeting, research ethics, and leadership. In addition, qualifications and continuous training offer good potential for RMAs to climb up the career development ladder within a university. Once again, universities can play a crucial role in widening the career development prospects by, for example, creating scales of support officers, administrators, and managers within a research support office to provide a career path within the same university.

A further observation about qualifications is that university RMAs possessing a doctorate degree face new horizontal career opportunities in terms of researching and publishing. These RMAs may decide to (a) switch completely to an academic career, (b) stay in the RMA career but use the knowledge gained from their doctorate to address better the researchers’ needs (e.g., by writing better quality proposals), or (c) adopt a role that balances personal research and research management (i.e., do both). Although the latter is the most difficult form of career development for RMAs, it seems to be the most common route that university RMAs with a doctorate in small island states adopt.

Addressing Conflicting Views and Different Agendas

Baldacchino and Farrugia (2002) argue that the unique social ecology of small island states often leads to the creation of closely knit societies and personalized relationships with strong social cohesion among small communities. In the case of universities, we identify instances in which closely knit societies and personalized relationships may influence positively the career development of university RMAs. For example, close relationships may facilitate conflict resolution, meditating, lobbying, and fast tracking of processes to meet certain deadlines. Close relationships may thus offer motivating factors for university RMAs who may have access to quicker solutions than if they were working in larger contexts.

Yet social cohesion may be easily and irreversibly distorted in a small community. Farrugia (2002) claims that “in communities where practically everyone knows everyone else, individuals’ utterances and actions soon become public knowledge…[and] it is extremely difficult to avoid the polarization that ensues” (p. 17). People tend to interact more frequently in a small community, thus increasing the possibility of conflict with each other (Sultana, 2006). Therefore, RMAs in small island state universities may need to develop certain skills that are more specific to their idiosyncratic contexts, such as negotiation skills, communication skills, and conflict resolution skills which, although necessary in universities in larger states, may be more essential within small island state universities. Like specialization and multifunctionalism, the skills to deal with conflict situations equip RMAs with an element of confidence, as they seek to overcome problems that are inherent in a restricted small island context. These skills emanate from the individual personality but can also be taught through careful interventions and career counseling (Zacher, Ambiel, & Noronha, 2015).

A Wider Scope

Despite that university RMAs may face limited options for career mobility, their role may easily adopt a different dimension in small island states. For example, university RMAs may provide feedback and advice to government in planning and adopting research strategies. University RMAs may also advise national funding agencies when the latter consider new funding mechanisms or changes to existing ones. Therefore, the role of university RMAs in small island states may easily assume a wider scope beyond the organizational domain. Baldacchino (cited in Sultana, 2006) suggests that in small island contexts “the construction of an occupational identity…shifts and fluctuates in response to fleeting opportunities” (p. 30). He further claims that “the editing of the self…relates not only to home-grown opportunities for self and career development, but for other opportunities that become available elsewhere” (p. 37). This wider dimension provides university RMAs with new prospects of career development from within the university to entities outside the university.

The wider scope in the role of university RMAs in small island states is also owed to the sources of research funding. In response to endemically limited funding available for research in small island states, universities in such countries often adopt strategies to obtain funds from extramural sources. In such contexts, the career development of university RMAs depends significantly on the universities’ ability to attract and exploit extramural research funding. Such strategies offer opportunities to university RMAs to develop certain expertise and to widen the scope of their role through continuous training and development, while opening up new networking opportunities. Curiosity is probably the dimension of career adaptability that equips university RMAs in small island states with the right inquisitive mind to explore opportunities for career development beyond the restricted university context.

Implications

We visualize the interrelationship between the factors that shape the career development of university RMAs and the idiosyncratic characteristics of small island states in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Redefining the role of university research managers and administrators in small island states.

At the intersection of both spheres lies the redefined role of university RMAs in small island states. This intersection demonstrates that career development for university RMAs in small island states is possible if they are able to adapt their roles according to the contextual realities. By twinning the redefinition of roles with the insights gained from career adaptability theory, discussed earlier, we are able to identify a number of implications to address career development issues within the restricted small island context.

The first implication is for university RMAs. We argue that the extent to which RMAs are able to cope with various challenges depends on their ability to understand the small island context and to be open to paths that may not be required to university RMAs in larger countries (Bonnici & Cassar, 2016). This is possible because, career adaptability is a learnable construct (Koen, Klehe, & Vianen, 2012), besides being dependent on personality traits (Brown & Hirschi, 2013). Therefore, when faced with uncertainty, entrenchment, or instability in their careers, university RMAs can adopt a combination of personal self-regulation and learning to face the challenges emanating from the context.

The second implication is for universities in small island states, as they should not be complacent in the face of contextual restrictions, but rather be ready to “intervene” in order to equip RMAs with coping mechanisms. Fostering participation in decision-making, providing career support, facilitating job rotation, and engaging RMAs in lifelong learning activities are among the interventions that universities can employ in order to nurture career adaptability into RMAs. Ito and Brotheridge (2005) suggest that these practices are positively associated with commitment and negatively associated with intentions to leave, thus furthering the proposal that management should play an active role in supporting career adaptability.

A third implication is for career counselors. While self-regulation is essential in building career adaptability, RMAs should not be expected to assume greater individual responsibility without receiving adequate support (Sultana, 2011). Through positive career orientation and careful career preparation, RMAs can be better equipped to face the contextual circumstances and the challenges of the labor market (Hirschi, 2009). This calls for a more active support by career counselors, both with college students in preparation of their careers and with RMAs in midlevel careers, to embrace resilient behaviors that help them realize their career aspirations within specific contexts (Bimrose & Hearne, 2012).

A final implication is for professional associations of RMAs. Given the circumstances faced by university RMAs in small island contexts, it may be sagacious for professional associations of RMAs to adopt more tailored approaches in the preparation of RMAs within restricted contexts. This preparation can take the shape of tailored curricula and training activities that are applicable more in restricted contexts and less to others, in order to equip RMAs with adaptability resources while maintaining their relevance to the profession.

Conclusion and Future Research

In this article, we examine the implications of contextual realities on career development by twinning the careers of university RMAs with the idiosyncratic characteristics of small island states. We argue that university RMAs in small island states pursue their career development goals by redefining their roles according to the contextual realities. Career adaptability theory helps us to understand how this redefinition occurs, particularly since adaptability arises from a combination of personality traits (self-regulation) and careful interventions.

We conclude that the context is a determinant factor in studying career development. Researchers who seek to understand career development and possibly make policy recommendations need to be sensitive for the contextual details that, albeit somehow insignificant, can actually pull them back to the drawing board of the underlying concepts in career development theory. This article has sought to provoke thinking in this regard. We suggest that empirical studies are conducted to test further our proposition that career development for university RMAs in restricted contexts is possible through a redefinition of their roles, which emanates from a combination of personality traits and learning. Empirical studies are encouraged to ascertain whether theories of career development and career adaptability would equally hold in various contexts.

More specifically, one area that should attract some investigation relates to the potential relationship between career development and the performance of universities in small island states. Studies in this area may investigate the relevance of already established models in career development theory, such as Weng and Hu’s (2009) four-factor model, within the idiosyncratic contexts of small states and islands. Such studies would put the model not only to a test of contextual realities but may also establish the validity and generalizability of the model to small and restricted contexts. Further studies may relate to the nature (whether temporary or permanent) of the redefinition in the roles of RMAs. Could it be that breadth specialization, multifunctionalism, stronger relationships, and a wider scope address only the short-term needs of university RMAs in small island states or do these factors create motivation and commitment across the entire career?

Empirical studies are also suggested to test whether our proposition holds to other professions operating in entrenched contexts, besides the RMAs profession. Is the type and level of adaptability required by other professions the same as that for university RMAs? What combination of personality traits and interventions is possible for various professions within restricted contexts? Would the arguments made about university RMAs equally hold to other more widely diffused professional roles in small contexts, such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, and academics? Finally, further investigation could be conducted on the role of career counseling on the careers of RMAs. Could the understanding of RMAs, their identity, and the stakeholders’ perceptions be made clearer if career counselors provide more tailored guidance to current and potential RMAs on the best ways to address the contextual realities in which they work? Would such guidance make RMAs better prepared and their work more relevant to the specific context or would their skills become less transferable? We hope that our article will generate interest not only into expanding research about the implications of the contextual realities on career development and on the field of research management but also into contributing further toward the study of islands and the manner in which their idiosyncratic characteristics impinge on different fields, such as that of career development.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Armstrong

H. W.

Read

(2003). The determinants of economic growth in small states. The Round Table, 368, 99–124.

Baldacchino

Farrugia

(2002). Educational planning and management in small states: Concepts and experiences. London, England: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Beasley

K. L.

(2006). The history of research administration. In Kulakowski

E. C.

Chronister

L. U.

(Eds.), Research administration and management (pp. 9–29). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Biemann

Fasang

A. E.

Grunow

(2011). Do economic globalization and industry growth destabilize careers? An analysis of career complexity and career patterns over time. Organization Studies, 32, 1639–1663.

Biemann

Zacher

Feldman

D. C.

(2012). Career patterns: A twenty-year panel study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 159–170.

Bimrose

Hearne

(2012). Resilience and career adaptability: Qualitative studies of adult career counseling. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 338–344.

Bocciardi

Caputo

Fregonese

Langher

Sartori

(2017). Career adaptability as a strategic competence for career development. European Journal of Training and Development, 41, 67–82.

Bonnici

Cassar

(2016). The research management profession within universities in small island states. Island Studies Journal, 11, 619–636.

Briguglio

Cordina

Farrugia

Vella

(2009). Economic vulnerability and resilience: Concepts and measurements. Oxford Development Studies, 37, 229–247.

10.

Brown

Bimrose

Barnes

S. A.

Hughes

(2012). The role of career adaptabilities for mid-career changers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 754–761.

11.

Brown

S. S.

Hirschi

(2013). Personality, career development, and occupational attainment. In Brown

R. W.

Lent

S. D.

(Ed.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 299–328). Somerset, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

12.

Bushaway

(2007). Managing research (2nd ed.). Buckingham, England: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education.

13.

Carnegie

G. D.

Tuck

(2010). Understanding the ABC of university governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69, 431–441.

14.

Carson

K. D.

Carson

P. P.

(1997). Career entrenchment: A quiet march toward occupational death? The Academy of Management Executive, 11, 62–75.

15.

Carson

K. D.

Carson

P. P.

Bedeian

A. G.

(1995). Development and construct validation of a career entrenchment measure. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 301–320.

16.

Carson

K. D.

Carson

P. P.

Roe

C. W.

Phillips

J. S.

(1996). A career entrenchment model: Theoretical development and empirical outcomes. Journal of Career Development, 22, 273–286.

17.

Chan

K. Y.

M. A.

M. H. R.

Sam

Y. L.

Chernyshenko

O. S.

K. Y. T.

(2015). Comparing two career adaptability measures for career construction theory: Relations with boundaryless mindset and protean career attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 22–31.

18.

Coetzee

Stoltz

(2015). Employees’ satisfaction with retention factors: Exploring the role of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 83–91.

19.

Connell

H. M.

(2004). University research management: Meeting the institutional challenge. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

20.

Cordina

(2004). Economic vulnerability, resilience and capital formation. In Briguglio

Kisanga

E. J.

(Eds.), Economic Vulnerability and Resilience of Small States (pp. 104–112). Malta and London: Islands and Small States Institute, University of Malta; Commonwealth Secretariat.

21.

Crossley

(2008). The advancement of educational research in small states. Comparative Education, 44, 247–254.

22.

Crossley

Bray

Packer

(2011). Education in small states: Policies and priorities. London, England: Commonwealth Secretariat.

23.

Derrick

Nickson

M. A. A.

(2014). Invisible intermediaries: A systematic review into the role of research management in university and institutional research processes. Journal of Research Administration, 45, 11.

24.

Farrugia

J. C.

(2002). Rewards and tribulations of senior education managers in small states. In Baldacchino

Farrugia Charles

(Eds.), Educational Planning and Management in Small States: Concepts and Experiences (pp. 13–24). London, England: Commonwealth Secretariat.

25.

Fisher

D. M.

(2014). A multilevel cross-cultural examination of role overload and organizational commitment: Investigating the interactive effects of context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 723.

26.

Green

Langley

(2009). Professionalizing research management. London, England: Higher Education Funding Council for England; Medical Research Council (MRC).

27.

Guan

Deng

Sun

Wang

Cai

… Li

(2013). Career adaptability, job search self-efficacy and outcomes: A three-wave investigation among Chinese university graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 561–570.

28.

Hamtiaux

Houssemand

Vrignaud

(2013). Individual and career adaptability: Comparing models and measures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 130–141.

29.

Hirschi

(2009). Career adaptability development in adolescence: Multiple predictors and effect on sense of power and life satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 145–155.

30.

Hirschi

Herrmann

Keller

A. C.

(2015). Career adaptivity, adaptability, and adapting: A conceptual and empirical investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 1–10.

31.

Ito

J. K.

Brotheridge

C. M.

(2005). Does supporting employees’ career adaptability lead to commitment turnover, or both? Human Resource Management, 44, 5–19.

32.

Jiang

(2016). The relationship between career adaptability and job content plateau: The mediating roles of fit perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 95–96, 1–10.

33.

Johnston

C. S.

(2016). A systematic review of the career adaptability literature and future outlook. Journal of Career Assessment, 1–28. https://journals-sagepub-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/full/10.1177/1069072716679921

34.

Johnston

C. S.

Luciano

E. C.

Maggiori

Ruch

Rossier

(2013). Validation of the German version of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale and its relation to orientations to happiness and work stress. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 295–304.

35.

Katsapis

C. C. A.

(2012). The incidence and types of occupational role stress among university research administrators. Research Management Review, 19, 1–23.

36.

Kirkland

(2005). Towards an integrated approach: University research management in an institutional context. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 4, 155–166.

37.

Klehe

U. C.

Zikic

Van Vianen

A. E. M.

De Pater

I. E.

(2011). Career adaptability, turnover and loyalty during organizational downsizing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 217–229.

38.

Koen

Klehe

U.-C.

Vianen

A. E. M. Van

. (2012). Training career adaptability to facilitate a successful school-to-work transition. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 395–408.

39.

Landen

McAllister

(2006). The research administrator as a professional: Training and development. In Kulakowski

E. C.

Chronister

L. U.

(Eds.), Research administration and management (pp. 75–82). Sudbury, Canada: Jones & Bartlett.

40.

Lintz

E. M.

(2008). A conceptual framework for the future of successful research administration. The Journal of Research Administration, 39, 68–80.

41.

Magnússon

M. Á.

(2013). Taking its place in Europe–Iceland’s long road to its EU application. Jean Monnet Occasional Paper 03/2013. Institute of European Studies, University of Malta.

42.

T. W. H.

Feldman

D. C.

(2007). Organizational embeddedness and occupational embeddedness across career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 336–351.

43.

Nota

Ginevra

M. C.

Santilli

Soresi

(2014). Contemporary career construction: The role of career adaptability. In Psycho-social career meta-capacities (pp. 247–263). Springer International Publishing.

44.

Öncel

(2014). Career adapt-abilities scale: Convergent validity of subscale scores. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 13–17.

45.

Potgieter

I. L.

(2012). The development of a career meta-competency model for sustained employability. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

46.

Savickas

M. L.

(1997). Career adaptability: An integrative construct for life-span, life-space theory. The Career Development Quarterly, 45, 247–259.

47.

Savickas

M. L.

(2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational behaviour. In Brown

(Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 149–205). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

48.

Savickas

M. L.

(2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In Brown

R. W.

Lent

S. D.

(Ed.), Career development and counseling (pp. 42–70). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

49.

Savickas

M. L.

(2011a). New questions for vocational psychology: Premises, paradigms, and practices. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 251–258.

50.

Savickas

M. L.

(2011b). Career counseling. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

51.

Savickas

M. L.

(2013). Career construction theory and practice. In Brown

R. W.

Lent

S. D.

(Ed.), Career development and counselling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 147–183). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

52.

Savickas

M. L.

Porfeli

E. J.

(2012). Career adapt-abilities scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 661–673.

53.

Shambrook

Roberts

T. J.

Triscari

(2011). Research administrator salary: Association with education, experience, credentials and gender. Journal of Research Administration, 42, 87–99.

54.

Shelley

(2010). Research managers uncovered: Changing roles and “shifting arenas” in the academy. Higher Education Quarterly, 64, 41–64.

55.

Stoltz

K. B.

Wolff

L. a.

Monroe

A. E.

Farris

H. R.

Mazahreh

L. G.

(2013). Adlerian lifestyle, stress coping, and career adaptability: Relationships and dimensions. Career Development Quarterly, 61, 194–209.

56.

Sultana

R. G.

(2006). Challenges for career guidance in small states. Msida, Malta: Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Educational Research.

57.

Sultana

R. G.

(2011). Lifelong guidance, citizen rights and the state: Reclaiming the social contract. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 39, 179–186.

58.

Super

D. E.

(1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In Brown

Brooks

(Ed.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (2nd ed., pp. 197–262). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

59.

Temples

Simons

Atkinson

T. N.

(2012). Research administration training and compliance at the department level for a predominantly undergraduate institution. Research Management Review, 19, 42–60.

60.

Thorhallsson

(2006). The size of states in the European Union: Theoretical and conceptual perspectives. European Integration, 28, 7–31.

61.

Thorhallsson

(2013). Iceland’s contested European policy: The footprint of the past: A small and insular society. Msida, Malta: University of Malta, Institute for European Studies.

62.

Tolentino

L. R.

Garcia

P. R. J. M.

V. N.

Restubog

S. L. D.

Bordia

Plewa

(2014). Career adaptation: The relation of adaptability to goal orientation, proactive personality, and career optimism. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 39–48.

63.

Tolentino

L. R.

Sedoglavich

V. N.

Garcia

P. R. J. M.

Restubog

S. L. D.

(2014). The role of career adaptability in predicting entrepreneurial intentions: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 403–412.

64.

Trindade

Agostinho

(2014). Research management in Portugal: A quest for professional identity. Research Management Review, 20, 1–8.

65.

M. A.

Chan

K. Y.

Sam

Y. L.

M. H. R.

Chernyshenko

O. S.

(2015). Proactivity, adaptability and boundaryless career attitudes: The mediating role of entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 115–123.

66.

Weigl

Hornung

Parker

S. K.

Petru

Glaser

Angerer

(2010). Work engagement accumulation of task, social, personal resources: A three-wave structural equation model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 140–153.

67.

Weng

(2009). The structure of career growth and its impact on employees’ turnover intention. Industrial Engineering and Management, 14, 14–21.

68.

Whitchurch

(2012). Expanding the parameters of academia. Higher Education, 64, 99–117.

69.

Zacher

Ambiel

R. A. M.

Noronha

A. P. P.

(2015). Career adaptability and career entrenchment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 164–173.