Internal funding and research infrastructure: seed/bridge/pilot funding, minor equipment funding, and centralized research resources/intranet are valued and repeatedly praised.
Targeted supports and outreach: grant‑writing help, assigned research mentors (especially for early‑career staff), and timely responses for conference funding are seen as effective.
Access to space/equipment and some technical/maintenance support have improved (instrument maintenance and shared‑resource provisions noted positively).

Administrative and financial research management: streamline grant administration, clarify roles/responsibilities for managing research funds, and speed up accounting/responses.
Collaboration, engagement, and fairness of recognition: address siloing between PIs, increase cross‑unit networking, and make researcher promotion/visibility more transparent and inclusive.
Technical support and tailored professional development: enhance on‑the‑fly technical support and training (e.g., equipment videos), and broaden practical PD/mentorship and grant supports beyond basic sciences to better serve practice‑focused and early‑career researchers.

Top priority: strengthen administrative support for research management (financial/accounting and HR processes) — this maps to the group's low rating for grant administration (58%), one of the three lowest‑rated items for Academic Faculty.

Top priority: more practical, hands‑on professional development and mentorship for early‑career and practice‑focused researchers (workshops/coaching tied to in‑progress projects) — this aligns with professional development, one of the group's three lowest‑rated areas (75%).

Some comments criticize selective promotion/visibility of researchers, yet overall ratings for communicating/promoting researchers are high (All Staff 83%); this indicates a split between general satisfaction and concerns about equity/representation.
Technical support is rated relatively high overall, but multiple comments call out gaps in timely, practical support and training for shared equipment, suggesting uneven local experiences despite good aggregate scores.
Comments calling for improved grant administration and reduced siloing are consistent with lower ratings for grant administration and collaboration/networking, so qualitative concerns align with those quantitative weaknesses.