Research culture is not just a concept; it is the lived experience of researchers navigating their careers within institutions. It determines who is heard, who leads, and who gets access to opportunities. Yet, institutional efforts to create an inclusive research culture often remain disconnected from the everyday realities of those working in academia (Wellcome Trust, 2020).

This paper explores a new strategic approach to creating community-led change. InFrame (designed to create an Inclusive Framework for Research Leadership), is a collaborative programme of work between the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St Andrews, funded by Wellcome. InFrame challenges traditional hierarchical and role-bound power tensions, by making research leadership more inclusive and collaborative, and amplifying the voices and actions of research professionals to create pathways for leadership, support, and recognition beyond traditional structures. At the heart of this effort is the Research Culture Catalyst Fund (CCF), an initiative that widens access to funding for new and emerging leaders across diverse roles and job families, fostering new ideas and perspectives. By supporting innovative, collaborative projects that focus on how research is led, and the behaviours, roles, contributions and impact of those who lead—CCF drives sustainable change through interdisciplinary collaboration and equitable leadership opportunities, testing and developing the co-created framework in practice. By funding research professionals at all career stages, particularly those in roles traditionally underrepresented in research leadership—such as Technicians, Research Professional staff, and Research-only Staff—CCF moves from advocacy to action, turning principles of collegiality into meaningful and sustainable institutional transformation. 

In early analysis of this initiative, this study explores how CCF fosters interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaboration and the ways its funding model supports leaders from disadvantaged or underrepresented backgrounds. Our key research questions include: 

1. How do collaborative networks evolve within universities, across disciplines, and between institutions?
2. What clustering patterns emerge in research partnerships from the Expression of Interest (EOI) phase to the full application stage?
3. What does EDI data tell us about participation trends and inclusivity within CCF applications?

This study is both informed by and contributes to the development of the Collegial Research Leadership Framework (CRLF), which serves as a conceptual model for embedding collegiality in research leadership by recognising and rewarding inclusive leadership practices (Guccione, 2022a). While this study provides empirical data that shapes aspects of the CRLF, the framework itself also informs the analysis of collaborative structures and leadership development. By exploring how institutional structures, leadership practices, and collaborative networks shape research environments, this study assesses how policies and initiatives contribute to meaningful and sustained research culture change.

We apply Social Network Analysis (SNA) to assess collaboration structures in the CCF application process, leveraging its established methodologies to examine relationships and information flow within networks (Borgatti et al., 2009). Data is collected from multiple phases: 1. Expression of Interest (EOI) Phase: Examining early-stage collaboration patterns from 131 EOIs, identifying emerging interdisciplinary and institutional networks. 2. Application Phase: Analysing confirmed project teams and their composition based on 53 submitted applications, evaluating the evolution of collaborative structures and leadership distribution. 3. Post-Award Phase: Assessing long-term collaboration patterns and sustained leadership development among funded projects, with post-award data collection planned after 1 months. We compare network dynamics across these phases using UCINET for quantitative network analysis and NetDraw for visualising collaboration patterns, analysing shifts in collaboration density and diversity to assess evolving participation trends. The analysis focuses on: • Degree centrality (mapping participation intensity by identifying lead applicants and co-leads working across multiple projects). • Betweenness centrality (identifying key individuals and institutions that act as bridges between disciplines and universities). • Modularity (detecting interdisciplinary clustering and institutional groupings in research networks). • Diversity indices (quantifying representation by gender, ethnicity, career stage, and role within CCF to assess inclusivity in research leadership). Additionally, the study examines institutional collaboration by tracking the transition from EOI to application stage across Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St Andrews, identifying institutions that sustain engagement and foster interdisciplinary partnerships. The network structure of single-university versus multi-university collaborations is also analysed to understand how funding mechanisms influence cross-institutional engagement. By incorporating these methods, this approach provides empirical insights into how CCF fosters interdisciplinary, cross-institutional collaboration and supports diverse leadership, assessing whether it effectively translates from advocacy to action in fostering meaningful research culture change.

In line with the ECER 2025 theme of Charting the Way Forward: Education, Research, Potentials, and Perspectives, this study will examine how institutional structures, leadership practices, and collaborative networks influence research culture, shaping collegial, inclusive, collaborative, accessible and sustainable research environments. By tracking interdisciplinary and inter-institutional collaborations, we will assess whether CCF effectively supports individuals who might otherwise struggle to access leadership opportunities, contributing to the evolving landscape of research governance and institutional reform. Beyond its immediate impact, this research will provide evidence-based recommendations for strengthening institutional frameworks that support diverse leadership pathways (Bhopal & Henderson, 2019). Additionally, this study contributes to discussions on research culture by illustrating how initiatives led by research professionals can drive systemic institutional change, reinforcing the role of collegiality and inclusive leadership. Ultimately, the findings will provide practical insights for policymakers, academic leaders, and institutions to move beyond compliance-driven approaches and actively embed sustainable, inclusive research culture initiatives. By identifying key enablers of equitable leadership and collaboration, this study offers actionable strategies for fostering long-term systemic change and reinforcing education and thriving research culture as interconnected forces in societal progress.

•Bhopal, K., & Henderson, H. (2019). Competing inequalities: gender versus race in higher education institutions in the UK. Educational Review, 73(2), 153–169. •Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892-895. •Guccione, K. (2022a). People Make Research – recognising those who make a positive difference to our research culture. Available at: https://theauditorium.blog/2022/07/26/people-make-research-recognising-those-who-make-a-positive-difference-to-our-research-culture/ •Wellcome Trust. (2020). What researchers think about the culture they work in. Retrieved from https://wellcome.org/reports/what-researchers-think-about-research-culture