Fresh thinking needs room to develop

What helps an Early Career Researcher (ECR) become an independent researcher rather than simply a more experienced one? Two recent publications offer an interesting perspective.

A study by Cui et al. published in Science in May 2026 analysed the work of more than 12.5 million scientists publishing between 1960 and 2020. The study, subsequently highlighted by Lenharo in Nature in May 2026, found that researchers’ contributions tend to change over the course of an academic career. Researchers with greater academic age were more likely to produce novel work by recombining established ideas. At the same time, the likelihood of producing highly disruptive work (i.e., research that displaces established ideas) declined with academic age.

The interesting point is that these are different kinds of contribution.

The findings do not suggest that one career stage is more valuable than another. The Science authors describe scientific progress as depending on both continuity and renewal. It is the capacity to integrate established knowledge and the capacity to replace established ideas when new work warrants it.

There is another aspect of the study that is particularly relevant to the development of Early Career Researchers. Within research teams, papers led by younger corresponding authors tended to cite newer literature than those led by older corresponding academics. The authors point to possible responses including greater opportunities for ECRs to take principal-investigator and co-corresponding-author roles, alongside intergenerational and less hierarchical collaboration.

That raises an important question for ECR development:

How do we help emerging researchers benefit from experience while giving their originality and independence room to grow?

A second publication written by Travers-Cook and colleagues, appearing in Trends Open in July 2026, adds another useful concept. It is academic agency. They use the term to describe ECRs having greater independence, meaningful choice and control over their academic work and related decisions, within relationships that respect autonomy. They argue that strengthening such agency may support ECR wellbeing and contribute to a more resilient academic environment. The authors also describe a constructive progression in the relationship between a Principal Investigator and an ECR. As an ECR develops, the PI can progressively support them in taking greater leadership of the project, while continuing to challenge ideas, contribute experience and help refine research decisions.

For us, one practical implication is to distinguish the role of mentoring from the role of coaching.

An experienced mentor can share disciplinary knowledge, explain how academia works, and help an ECR understand professional expectations and research processes. Travers-Cook and colleagues similarly emphasise mentorship, shared experience and the gradual development of greater research responsibility.

In our coaching practice, the emphasis is different. The coach does not supply the answer, but helps the ECR examine assumptions, clarify priorities, consider alternatives and make deliberate choices. A coaching conversation can also create space to examine whether pressure, uncertainty, or the expectations of others are influencing choices that the ECR would prefer to make more independently. This is especially relevant as an ECR takes greater responsibility for research direction and develops greater independence in academic work.

There is a useful complementarity here. Experience can provide perspective, accumulated knowledge, and an understanding of how academic research works. ECRs, in turn, bring a fresh perspective. This is something the Trends Open authors explicitly recognise, while the Science study points to the distinctive disruptive contribution associated with earlier academic age.  

The goal is to support ECRs as they develop a research direction and academic standing of their own, drawing on the experience of senior colleagues without losing the independence and fresh perspective they bring to their work.

For ECRs, mentors, and research leaders alike, perhaps that leaves us with two useful questions. Not only:

“What does this researcher still need to learn?”

but also:

“What is already here that we should make sure we do not lose?”

Start the conversation