Research contributor

Yousif A. Akbar

Level 7 People Practice Researcher

AI talentEmployee retentionResearch autonomyPsychological safety

Practitioner research profile

Exploring what specialist AI researchers need in order to stay and thrive.

Yousif’s completed Level 7 project examines specialist talent retention in a highly competitive technology environment. The study brings together published evidence and qualitative interviews to identify practical actions for sustaining research capability, employee commitment and innovation.

Public profile boundary

Only research information supported by the submitted project is shown. Employment history, location, CV and LinkedIn details have not been published because they were not provided for public use.

Completed research project

Retaining specialist AI research talent

A qualitative investigation into how autonomy, career progression, recognition, psychological safety and external competition shape retention.

Strategic issueSpecialist talent retention

SectorGlobal technology

MethodSemi-structured interviews

Research base10 participants

The business issue

Organisations competing for scarce AI expertise face more than a remuneration challenge. The project investigated how the employment experience can either protect or weaken strategically important research capability when highly mobile specialists have attractive external options.

Research aim

To investigate the underlying challenges involved in retaining AI specialists within research teams and develop evidence-informed recommendations that support retention, engagement and long-term AI capability.

Method and limitations

The study used a qualitative design with ten semi-structured interviews selected purposively for their relevance to the research question. Responses were analysed thematically. Participation was voluntary and reporting was anonymised. As a small, context-specific qualitative study, the findings offer depth rather than statistical generalisability, and proposed benefits require validation in the organisation where actions are adopted.

What the research found

Four connected retention pressures.

The themes should be considered together because improvement in one area cannot fully compensate for persistent barriers elsewhere.

Research autonomy and resources

Participants valued freedom to shape work, access strong computing resources and credible routes to contribute to the wider research community.

Culture and wellbeing

High pressure, restricted openness and limited psychological safety were associated with burnout risk and weaker commitment.

Competitive market pressure

External offers combined strong rewards with autonomy, visibility and participation in high-profile innovation.

Career development and recognition

Unclear technical progression and limited recognition made long-term futures harder for specialists to see.

Evidence-informed recommendations

Practical actions for decision-makers.

Protect research autonomy

Create structured time for researcher-led work and carefully governed routes for knowledge dissemination and conference participation.

Make technical careers visible

Publish progression criteria, technical leadership pathways and the evidence required for advancement.

Recognise research contribution

Build regular, credible recognition that connects specialist work with leadership attention and organisational impact.

Strengthen psychological safety

Develop inclusive leadership, monitor workload and stress, and respond to wellbeing risks within high-performing research teams.

Potential organisational value

Stronger retention may protect research continuity, institutional knowledge, employer reputation and innovation capability while reducing replacement and disruption costs. The submitted cost-benefit estimates are scenario-based and should not be treated as realised or independently verified outcomes.

Continue the conversation

Interested in Yousif’s research?

The full assignment is not automatically placed in the public domain. Further access depends on the researcher’s permission and any applicable confidentiality requirements.

Return to Explore the Evidence