In theory, it’s pretty straightforward. The Principal Investigator is meant to be the scientific lead. They come up with important research questions, develop new methods, bring together collaborators, win funding, and generate new knowledge.<\/p>\n
That’s the theory, anyway.<\/p>\n
In reality, particularly in data-driven research, the PI often ends up doing a whole lot more than science.<\/p>\n
Modern research runs on data. Almost everybody agrees with that. But the responsibility for navigating everything that comes with data somehow ends up landing on the PI’s desk.<\/p>\n
Before a project has even started, they’re thinking about consent, participant information sheets, governance requirements and ethics approvals. Then come sponsorship arrangements, contracts, data-sharing agreements, information governance reviews, institutional policies, data access requests, data management plans, analysis plans, reporting requirements and dissemination strategies.<\/p>\n
And through all of that, the PI doesn’t need to be an expert in every area. They just need to know enough to keep things moving while also carrying the ultimate responsibility if anything goes wrong.<\/p>\n
No pressure!<\/p>\n
The issue isn’t that these functions exist. Most researchers understand why ethics, governance, data protection, legal compliance and quality assurance matter.<\/p>\n
The problem is that over time we’ve built a huge ecosystem around them.<\/p>\n
Every group has its own remit. Its own processes. Its own systems. Its own priorities.<\/p>\n
The contracts team focuses on contracts. Governance focuses on governance. Legal focuses on legal issues. Data providers focus on their responsibilities. Everyone is doing an important job.<\/p>\n
But the PI is often the only person who can actually see the whole journey from start to finish.<\/p>\n
They’re the glue holding it all together.<\/p>\n
This is where things can become frustrating.<\/p>\n
Many professional services teams genuinely see themselves as supporting research. I’m sure most do. But from the researcher’s side of the table, it can sometimes feel very different.<\/p>\n
Every request seems to create another form.<\/p>\n
Then another review.<\/p>\n
Then another approval process.<\/p>\n
Then a meeting to discuss the review that came from the approval process.<\/p>\n
Then a request for clarification.<\/p>\n
Then another policy interpretation.<\/p>\n
At times it feels less like a coordinated effort to help research happen and more like an obstacle course that has to be completed before you’re allowed to continue.<\/p>\n
The result is a fundamental mismatch in expectations.<\/p>\n
Researchers are judged on outcomes. They have to recruit participants, hit milestones, publish findings, deliver grant objectives and generate impact.<\/p>\n
Professional services teams are often judged on something entirely different. Their success is measured by the absence of problems.<\/p>\n
Neither goal is unreasonable. In fact, both are important.<\/p>\n
But one side is trying to move forward while the other is trying to make sure nothing goes wrong. It’s not hard to see how friction develops.<\/p>\n
And after a while, that friction gets exhausting.<\/p>\n
One of the strangest things about the system is that very few people understand the entire process end to end.<\/p>\n
The contracts team may not fully appreciate how contract delays affect data access.<\/p>\n
The governance team may not see the practical challenges faced by analysts.<\/p>\n
Legal teams may not feel the pressure of grant deadlines.<\/p>\n
Data providers may not understand the timelines researchers are working against.<\/p>\n
Funders may not appreciate how long approval processes can actually take.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the PI somehow has to understand enough of all of these things to stop the project grinding to a halt.<\/p>\n
It’s a hidden burden that rarely appears in job descriptions or promotion criteria.<\/p>\n
Researchers train to become experts in science. \u00a0They don’t typically train in procurement, contract law, sponsorship frameworks, information governance, institutional policy, project management and regulatory compliance.<\/p>\n
Yet increasingly that’s exactly what’s being asked of them.<\/p>\n
There’s a particularly cruel irony here.<\/p>\n
The projects with the greatest potential impact often carry the greatest administrative
\nburden.<\/p>\n
Large-scale studies involving linked datasets, multiple organisations, patient information, advanced analytics and complex governance arrangements can answer hugely important questions.<\/p>\n
They can transform healthcare.<\/p>\n
They can influence policy.<\/p>\n
They can generate entirely new scientific insights.<\/p>\n
But they’re also the projects most likely to require years of negotiation before a single analysis can begin.<\/p>\n
Researchers can spend months, sometimes years, securing access to data that might only take weeks to analyse once it’s finally available.<\/p>\n
That’s a remarkable imbalance when you stop and think about it.<\/p>\n
The temptation is to blame individuals.<\/p>\n
But honestly, that’s usually not the problem.<\/p>\n
Most people involved are trying to do the right thing.<\/p>\n
Professional services staff are trying to protect institutions, participants and researchers.<\/p>\n
Researchers are trying to produce evidence that improves health, science and society.<\/p>\n
The issue isn’t the people.<\/p>\n
It’s the system.<\/p>\n
Over time we’ve created a landscape that has become so specialised, fragmented and compartmentalised that nobody seems responsible for enabling the whole process. Everyone owns a piece of the journey, but nobody owns the journey itself.<\/p>\n
What researchers need isn’t fewer safeguards.<\/p>\n
Most people aren’t arguing for that.<\/p>\n
What they need is better alignment.<\/p>\n
They need professional services teams that see themselves as partners rather than checkpoints.<\/p>\n
They need experts who help navigate barriers rather than simply point them out.<\/p>\n
They need shared ownership of solutions instead of fragmented ownership of problems.<\/p>\n
Most of all, they need a system designed to enable good research safely, not simply prevent bad things from happening.<\/p>\n
The job nobody thought they signed up for<\/p>\n
Until something changes, many PIs will continue to occupy a slightly uncomfortable position at the centre of the research enterprise.<\/p>\n
They are simultaneously scientist, administrator, negotiator, project manager, compliance officer, diplomat and patient advocate.<\/p>\n
That’s a lot of hats for one person to wear.<\/p>\n
Everybody talks about the importance of data-driven research. Yet far too often the responsibility for making it happen rests with a single individual trying to navigate a system that can feel more focused on preventing mistakes than enabling success.<\/p>\n
And if we’re honest, that’s a very different job from the one most researchers thought they were signing up for.<\/p>\n