Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ii
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
RMR
RESEARCH MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Concerned with the broad range of issues affecting the administration of research, Research
Management Review provides a forum for the dissemination of knowledge about the study
and practice of the profession of research administration. Research Management Review (ISSN
1068-4867) is published periodically by the National Council of University Research
Administrators at 1225 19th Street, NW, Ste. 850, Washington, DC 20036. Copies are available
only electronically from the NCURA Web site at: www.ncura.edu
Manuscripts, manuscript concepts, and letters to the editor are welcome and should be
submitted to Jennifer Shambrook, Ph.D., at jennfer.shambrook@stjude.org.
Manuscripts for Volume 18, Number 2 will be accepted until September 1, 2011.
iii
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
iv
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
EDITORIAL STAFF
v
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
vi
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
RMR
Volume 18, Number 1 (Spring/Summer 2011)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Editor’s Preface........................................................................................................................................... ix
Letters to the Editor ................................................................................................................................... xi
Online: http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v18n1_EditorsPreface.pdf
From 9/11 to Recession: Historically Significant Events in America and Their Impact on
Research Administration.......................................................................................................................... 31
Linnea Minnema, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Online: http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v18n1_Minnema.pdf
More Paper Out the Door: Ten Inexpensive Ways to Stimulate Proposal Development ............ 64
Robert Porter, University of Tennessee
Online: http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v18n1_Porter.pdf
Book Review: Techniques for Monitoring Federal Subawards, 3rd ed. .............................................. 97
Claudia Haywood, J. Craig Venter Institute
Online: http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v18n1_BookReview.pdf
vii
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
viii
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
EDITOR’S PREFACE
Full Text PDF Online at:
http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v18n1_EditorsPreface.pdf
It is with great joy and humility that I As a new editor, of course I bring my
assume the role of Editor of the Research own ideas into the mix of what RMR should
Management Review. Following in the be. In a word, it should be USEFUL. I want
footsteps of one of my long-time mentors, to see RMR be the source you go to in order
Bob Killoren, is an awe-inspiring to explain a task or concept, learn how
experience. Having a paper published in someone dealt with an issue, see the results
RMR was a milestone in my own career, of research related to research
and working with Bill Sharp, who was then administration, or review leadership theory
editor, was a completely positive as it exists in our environment. Also, as our
experience. During my tenure, my goal is to profession is being legitimized by the birth
make authors’ submission of manuscripts of master’s degree programs in research
just as positive an experience. administration, I want to see RMR serve as
The Editorial Review Board has stayed a forum for the publication of thesis
almost completely intact. I am deeply projects. In that way, we can all glean
grateful to those who have so selflessly knowledge from the hard work and
given of their time and talent over the years scholarship of these bright young thought
in serving the research administration leaders.
community by painstakingly reviewing In this issue, we open with an article
articles and offering comments for from Jo Ann Smith and Laurianne Torres
strengthening articles before they go to on the process of developing the master of
press. I am also thankful to those who have research administration program at the
accepted the invitation to join the RMR University of Central Florida (UCF). UCF
Editorial Review Board in order to lighten was the recipient of the NCURA grant for
the burden somewhat by dividing the tasks developing a master of research
among more pairs of hands. The Editorial administration program. This is an
Review Board stands ready to spot-check interesting read for those considering the
the experienced author and to shepherd the development of such a program at their
new author through the peer review institution. It should also be useful for
process—helping a good manuscript evolve comparison purposes to anyone interested
into a published paper. in enrolling in this or other MRA programs.
ix
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Many who have engaged in any sort of Transformational leadership theory blends
research or commentary on research the different leadership styles in which we
administrators as an occupational group must engage while working in an
have referred to the past RMR article by Dr. environment where we must play multiple
Thomas J. Robert, “Profile of a Research roles. I recommend this article to all
Administrator” (2006). That landmark research administrators who have a desire
article, which used regional 2005 data, has to improve their own leadership style in
been updated to use national 2010 data. order to adjust to the schizophrenic
Demographic factors include the environment of research administration.
predictable: gender, salary, educational I have attended Dr. Robert Porter’s
level, CRA status, age, and ethnic group, as “More Paper out the Door” presentations at
well as personal demographics such as national and regional conferences again and
children at home, responsibility for house- again. I learn from each one and always
keeping duties, volunteerism, and much come away with fresh ideas of how to
more. Those doing research with this encourage investigators to write more and
occupational group and those with just a better applications. At my request, Dr.
sense of curiosity will find this an Porter has committed this highly popular
interesting article to explore. presentation to the written word. I predict
We all know much has changed in the this article will offer some new insights and
research administration landscape over the friendly reminders to those who have been
past decade. Linnea Minnema, an MRA in research administration for a while. I
candidate from Emmanuel College, shares a further predict it will become required
review of the impact of historically reading for newly hired research
significant events on research administrators and development officers
administration from 9/11 to the recession. throughout the globe.
This thought-provoking history of research William Ferreria, J.D., offers a thorough
administration over the past decade treatise on collaborations between industry
presents a fine historical perspective that and academic institutions. This work
documents the roller-coaster ride we have clarifies some of the confusion and
experienced since the aftermath of 9/11 and misconceptions concerning relationships
the increase in the defense budget, and with between industry and academic institutions.
ARRA and the recession. As relationships between academia and
Drs. Tim Atkinson and Tom Pilgreen industry become more frequent and more
present an article on transformational highly regulated, a good understanding of
leadership theory as applied in the context the nuances of these relationships is critical.
of the research environment.
x
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
This issue ends with two media reviews. you will find them useful as you facilitate
First, “The Lab: A Positive Solution to the research enterprise and do your part in
Research Misconduct”, is reviewed by improving the quality of life of this and
Miriam Campo. This interactive film is a future generations. Please share your
fun and dynamic way to offer responsible comments about these articles as a Letter to
conduct of research training on your the Editor at
campus. It is a free resource provided by the jennifer.shambrook@stjude.org. RMR would
Office of Research Integrity and well worth love to hear from you.
exploring further. Second, Techniques for
Jennifer Shambrook, Ph.D.
Monitoring Federal Subawards by Thompson
Editor, Research Management Review
Publishing is reviewed by Claudia
jennifer.shambrook@stjude.org
Haywood, J.D. This review provides insight August 2011
into this resource—one that you may want
to consider for your office library.
I hope you will enjoy reading these
articles as much as I have. Moreover, I hope
xi
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
application present a clear, concise bottom edge of funding) that address the
explanation of the proposed project?” agency’s priorities rather than award by
Answers to these types of questions from numerical value alone. Therefore, an eager
program directors can shed light on how young investigator who has submitted an
the reviewers might perceive a research agency-focused, well-written application
project. with an “on the cusp” score can have that
Often a program director, upon seeing proposal moved into the funded award
an abstract of a potential project, will say, category.
“My program doesn’t fund that type of Additionally, program directors can
project, but I think that another program is provide valuable insight into the unfunded
a better fit.” This is often followed by a application. Sometimes, investigators or
referral to and contact information for that project directors begin on an appropriate
program. route in the beginning of the application but
The “Tip of the Iceberg” points were on lead themselves astray during the process.
the mark. Program officers can often predict A friendly, not accusatory, conversation
how the presentation and components of with a program director can lead that
projects have been received by grant application to funding on the second try.
reviewers. There are no guarantees of This can be a much easier way to obtain
funding. funding rather than by starting all over
However, working with a program again.
officer can be a win-win situation. The As sponsored program personnel, we
program officer wants to have as many can offer to new investigators a portal into
high-quality proposals that address the mysteries of working with an agency,
program priorities as possible. In this way, talking to a program director, and/or
when budget allocations are made within interpreting a review sheet. The rewards for
the agency, the program officer can justify a faculty and the sponsored program
request for an increase in future budget personnel are unlimited! Let’s keep talking!
allocations by demonstrating that a high
number of excellent applications were Nancy B. Bell, Ph.D.
received but that only a percentage of these CEO, Research Image
could be funded based on the current Marble Falls, TX 78654
budget allocation. Every program officer
would have like to have had a few more
funded applications. Also, many program
officers now have the authority to select a
few applications from the “cusp” (the
xii
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
xiii
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
suggest an inherent conflict with academic (Shackelford, 2002). While the larger
mission. A difference exists for the private institutions show positive economic return
universities, however, in that they perhaps from licensing revenues that appears to
account for and justify all of their research counter-balance the overall TTO
investments. Admittedly, these suggestions expenditure, these data on IP
are speculative. Determining the exact commercialization, at least for smaller
reasons for these differences will require institutions, should be encouraging. While
further research. this survey captures the most essential
Despite underlying intentions of the elements of the TTO financial efficiencies,
Bayh-Dole Act, post-implementation data issues such as TTO structure, intellectual
indicate that most TTOs function as cost capital, and focus were not specifically
centers at their respective institutions, not addressed; doing so would have generated
as revenue centers. Furthermore, research a clearer snapshot of the current situation in
institution personnel are primarily the TTOs.
compensated for their IP management Existing data show that 8% of all
functions and not for any revenue intellectual properties and patents are
generated in IP management and submitted or owned by academic
commercialization. For instance, the data institutions and 80% by private firms
indicate that only 20% of TTOs are required (OECD, 2011)—this vast disparity may have
to self-fund at least 50% of their expenses resulted from the focus and motivational
from revenues. In addition, fewer than 20% factors between these entities. Furthermore,
of TTOs have incentive plans that the current study indicated the existence of
compensate for deal value. extant differences in philosophy,
On the contrary, the economic return, as management, and motivations for IP
defined by the AUTM Survey, indicates that commercialization among universities,
roughly 18 institutions received $3.4 billion academic centers, research institutions, and
in licensing revenues (AUTM, 2008). industry. Universities, academic medical
Further, the data on licensing revenues centers, and research institutes are poised to
reveal that most product listings were advance fundamental knowledge and
pharmaceutical products, which generated develop technology. It is not their main
a high sales volume and value. It is notable mission to focus on or independently
that in 2002, total U.S. licensing value is develop and market IP products.
estimated to be in excess of $500 billion Commercialization of the IP for these
(Invention Statistics), which far exceeded institutions requires obtaining a licensing
the national research and development- partner and most often requires
estimated expenditure of $292 billion collaborative efforts with an industrial
xiv
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
xv
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
xvi
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
would follow this business model; however, institutions’ missions do not focus on
it has been reported that more research technology commercialization and are thus
investment would be necessary to the limited by not having the expertise
successful commercialization of IPs (DeVol necessary to license and successfully
et al., 2006). commercialize their inventions and
It appears that the authors of this study technologies. Should the universities,
have measured “success” strictly in terms of academic medical centers, and independent
the amount of revenue generated as net research institutes follow the business
revenue by a research institution on IP model to optimize technology
technology development. However, other commercialization and to generate revenues
non-financial factors were not measured, in excess of their operating budgets, they
some of which may be influential factors in must focus on this area and invest
the success of IP, including publications, appropriately to reach this goal.
grants, and other associated but difficult to
measure benefits inventors and the LITERATURE CITED
institutions bring to the table. On many Abrams, I., Leung, G., & Stevens A. J.
instances, the research itself has been the (2009). How are U.S. technology transfer
primary goal and the intellectual property offices tasked and motivated—Is it all
associated with the research resulted as a about the money? Research Management
Review, 17, 18–50.
by-product of the research process, or even
DeVol, R., BedDeVol, R., Bedroussian, A.,
as a secondary outcome. It is not surprising Babayan, A., Frye, M., Murphy, D.,
that successful inventors are also successful Philipson, T. J., Wallace, L., Wong, P., &
researchers who often bring numerous Yeo, B. (2006). Mind to market: A global
grant awards to the institutions at which analysis of university biotechnology transfer
they are employed—grants that also and commercialization. Santa Barbara, CA:
Milken Institute.
contribute to the financial viability of their
Fritsch, M., & Franke, G. (2004). Innovation,
institutions. Moreover, evidence shows that
regional knowledge spillover and R&D
“knowledge spillover” contributes to local cooperation. Research Policy, 33, 245–255.
and regional innovation (Fritsch & Franke, Invention Statistics. (2011).
2004). www.inventionstatistics.com
We concur with the authors that OECD. (2011). Conference on Patent
universities, academic medical centers, and Statistics for Decision Makers.
Alexandria, Virginia (USPTO), 16–17
research institutes, especially the smaller
November.
institutions, lack the necessary operating
Shackelford, B. (2002). National Science
budgets to commercialize IP technology. Foundation. Science Resources Statistics.
We find that unlike private industries, these InfoBrief, NSF 03-307.
xvii
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
xviii
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
ABSTRACT
In 2009, the second largest university in the nation was awarded a grant from NCURA to
initiate a new fully-online graduate program in research administration. The Master of
Research Administration (MRA) was approved by the institution’s Board of Trustees in
March 2011 and the first classes will begin August 2011. Currently the research literature
does not offer studies on establishing and developing research administration graduate
programs. The purpose of this paper is to describe the planning process followed to establish
the graduate program at the University of Central Florida, provide a brief overview of the
program, and identify the lessons learned during these initial stages of the process.
The University of Central Florida (UCF), founded in 1963, is the second-largest university
in the nation. Located in Orlando, Florida, UCF and its 12 colleges provide opportunities to
56,235 students, offering 183 bachelor’s and master’s degrees and 29 doctoral programs.
Students come from all 50 states and 140 countries.
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classified UCF as a university
with “very high research activity” (RU/VH), which is the highest designation for doctorate-
granting universities.
1
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
2
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
medical centers and related positions at 189 responses. Of the 189 surveyed, a total
federal agencies. of 74% indicated an interest in taking such a
The need for continued professional program. The respondents were primarily
development from a growing number of university research administrators; 80%
research administrators is demonstrated by agreed that a MRA program would be
the National Council of University Research important and fill an educational need for
Administrators (NCURA)’ rapid those in research administration.
membership growth; from 1983 to 2008 its The projection of employment growth
membership grew 403% (Roberts, Sanders, for research administrators is difficult to
& Sharp, 2008). One of NCURA’s primary measure. Although the U.S. Department of
missions is to provide members with Labor does not gather employment data for
education and professional development to research administrators specifically, it does
help research administrators remain current gather data on those working in research
with the constant changes in the field and to and development who are heavily
help acclimate those entering the supported by research administrators. The
profession. This escalation in NCURA U.S. Department of Labor reported that
membership affirms that continued wage and salary employment in scientific
education and development is of great research and development services was
importance to research administrators. projected to increase by 25% between 2008
Subsequently, the need for a graduate and 2018, compared with 11% employment
program in research administration was growth for the economy as a whole.
clearly described in the NCURA Request for Demand for new research and development
Proposals (2009) calling for institutions of is expected to continue to grow across all
higher education to submit implementation major fields, with growth being particularly
proposals to establish fully online graduate strong in biotechnology and other life
programs for research administrators. In sciences research as increased demand for
this announcement the necessity for a medical and pharmaceutical advances are
master’s degree was indicated through a driven by an aging population. This
2009 survey of NCURA members. Eight- demand will lead to increased research and
hundred and eighty five (885) respondents development spending in these areas and
stated an interest in an online graduate will likely increase the need for research
degree in research administration. NCURA administrators to support the expansion of
also gathered anecdotal information from these national efforts (Bureau of Labor
federal government employees with similar Statistics, n.d.).
interest in such a graduate program No formal survey has been conducted of
(NCURA, 2009). In the same way, UCF potential employers’ need for highly-skilled
distributed a survey in fall 2010 using a research administrators (universities,
research administrator listserv that received government agencies, hospitals, and other
3
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
non-profits), although there is direct and higher education to create fully online
indirect evidence suggesting significant graduate programs.
employer need for formally trained research Initial Discussions and NCURA
administrators. According to Roberts (2005), Proposal. During 2009, the dean of the
it is likely that employers would desire College of Health & Public Affairs and the
having quality educational and professional dean of the Regional Campuses along with
development programs available for those the Public Administration Department chair
new to the profession “since the vast met with Office of Research and
majority of research administrators enter Commercialization representatives and
the profession with little or no experience in interested faculty members at Central
the field” (p. 100). Institutions wish to avoid Florida University to discuss collaboration
penalties for noncompliance and to uphold in the development of a graduate program
the reputation of their faculty researchers in research administration. The Department
and their institutions. Penalties for research of Public Administration aligned well with
misconduct can be severe. Potentially, research administration and had offered
research institutions could be debarred classes in grants and contracts for the past
from receiving federal grants and 12 years for the degree programs in
individual researchers could be restricted nonprofit management and public
from applying for any federal research administration at both the undergraduate
funding. Depending on the authorizing and graduate levels. The department chair
legislation, penalties for noncompliance was experienced in establishing new
related to export controls can range programs and was ready to work on
between $65,000 and $250,000 for civil establishing a MRA within the department.
violations and criminal penalties for In addition, Regional Campuses and
individuals can be up to $1,000,000 and 20 Continuing Education had been successful
years of imprisonment. Preventing and in creating and offering fully online
avoiding such serious penalties for professional degrees nationally and agreed
noncompliance is an incentive for an to help create a new program that would
employer to desire quality education model their other graduate programs. In
programs designed specifically for research addition, Regional Campuses agreed to
administrators and for hiring highly- provide financial support to hire a full-time
qualified research administrators. program coordinator in the event of an
PLANNING PROCESS implementation grant award from NCURA.
The initiative to investigate creating a The Office of Research and
graduate program in research Commercialization offered its expertise to
administration began with the release of help develop the NCURA proposal in
NCURA’s call for implementation collaboration with other university
proposals to encourage institutions of partners. The proposal to NCURA was
4
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
submitted and awarded in the fall semester board and began developing and writing
of 2009. the implementation plan with the chair and
Prepare White Paper. Upon the NCURA with input from the advisory board and
award, the next step, according to faculty members. During this time the
university procedures, was to submit a coordinator used this input and knowledge
white paper to the Graduate Council and experience in instructional design and
Program Review Committee. The white research administration to gather resources
paper for the research administration and develop the framework for the
proposal was written by the department curriculum core of the program.
chair to request an opportunity to submit a Develop Course Syllabi. In conjunction
formal MRA Implementation Plan proposal. with writing the Implementation Proposal,
The purpose of submitting a white paper is all new MRA course syllabi had to be
to describe and define: the overall program; created and submitted to the College
student demand and head count Curriculum Committee for review and
projections; possible careers for students; approval. The instructional model used to
student outcomes; new faculty, equipment, develop the MRA is based on the Kemp,
or space required for the new program; any Morrison, and Ross Model (1994). This
similar programs at other institutions in the model is not a linear model and consists of
state to avoid duplication; and the proposed nine revolving elements: instructional
start date. The white paper was first problem, learner characteristics, subject
reviewed by the dean of the college and content, instructional objectives, sequence
then forwarded to the vice provost and content, instructional strategies,
dean of the Graduate College, who made instructional delivery, evaluation, and
the white paper available to all deans. Each resources. Based on the instructional design
dean conducted internal college discussions process, the program coordinator gathered
to identify concerns with the proposal, such resources to identify learner competencies,
as overlaps, duplications, or possible areas learner characteristics, and instructional
of cooperation. In spring 2010, the vice objectives, and created a syllabi template to
provost and dean of the Graduate College distribute to all faculty and instructors
evaluated the white paper and granted qualified to teach the new courses, with
approval for the Department of Public core learning objectives stated for each
Administration to move forward with an course. Faculty members created a syllabus
MRA Implementation Proposal. for their specific course content that
Hire Coordinator and Prepare included information on textbooks/journal
Implementation Proposal. During summer articles required for the course, program
2010, a position was advertised and a full- goals, course learning objectives, class
time program coordinator was hired. The policies, expectations, how assignments and
program coordinator recruited an advisory learning objectives would be assessed, and
5
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
the weekly assignment schedule. The syllabi department’s admissions committee that
had to be approved by the department and meets monthly to make admission and
college curriculum review committees prior administrative decisions regarding
to submission of the MRA Implementation graduate programs with the department.
Proposal to the Graduate Council. Currently, members include the coordinator
Graduate Council Review. Once the for the Master of Public Administration, the
syllabi were approved, the Implementation coordinator for the Master of Nonprofit
Proposal was reviewed and approved by Management, the coordinator of the Master
the Graduate Council in January 2011. The of Science in Urban and Regional Planning,
MRA was included on the Board of Trustees and the departmental coordinator for
schedule for the next meeting in March. academic services. The admissions
During this time work began with Regional committee reviews applications to make
Campuses and college units to develop admission decisions regarding all students
marketing materials, advertising outlets, entering the new program.
and the program website.
ADVISORY BOARD
Board of Trustees Review. Final
In September 2010, the University of
approval was obtained from the Board of
Central Florida MRA Advisory Board was
Trustees. With this approval the program
formed with a broad array of
could now be advertised and set up to
representatives from public, private, and
accept online student applications. The
nonprofit sectors. Criteria used in selecting
program began accepting applications
the members of the board were:
within two weeks after approval. The
recommendations from professional peers
Graduate College will now send the
and diversity of institutions, expertise, and
proposal with comments to the Florida
geographical locations. It was important to
Board of Governors for consideration at the
hear from those who were active and
June meeting and the MRA Program will be
knowledgeable in the profession, those who
placed on the state inventory. See Appendix
might hire graduates of the program, and to
A for the timeline.
have at least one member who could be a
ADMINISTRATION OF THE potential student of the program. The MRA
PROGRAM Advisory Board meets at least three times
The administration of the program during the year, face-to-face and virtually,
resides within the Department of Public to address resources as well as curriculum
Administration under the direction of a and competencies. Many of the members
program coordinator whose role is to were able to meet at the 52nd NCURA
oversee the MRA program. The department Annual Conference in Washington, DC, on
chair supervises the program coordinator. November 2, 2010.
This program coordinator is part of the Primarily, the advisory board will serve
in five areas:
6
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
• Providing guidance and input into the degree in multiple areas. The goal is to
MRA curriculum, delivery methods, accept students from multiple types of
develop case studies for use in courses, organizations across the nation working in
be guest speakers, identify guest universities, research centers, medical and
speakers, input into student assessment, biomedical research centers, federal
and program evaluation; agencies, and private research institutions.
• Engaging in marketing and recruitment This will give students an opportunity to
of students—input into methods used to build a professional network of research
advertise the MRA such as a website, administrators from multiple organizations
and dissemination of program and locations. It will strengthen the
information at professional meetings program and enhance the student
and conferences; experience.
• Providing names of potential new
advisory board members who would “The goal is to accept students
contribute to the MRA program;
from multiple types of
• Recommending areas for research and
collaborations; and organizations across the nation
• Coaching students in their culminating working in universities, research
event (i.e., matching board members to centers, medical and biomedical
students as mentors).
research centers, federal agencies,
The MRA Advisory Board provided
guidance in the development of the and private research institutions .
curriculum and compelling letters of . . It will strengthen the program
support for the Implementation Proposal.
and enhance the student
Board members made recommendations on
the targeted student population for the
experience.”
MRA Program. It was agreed to first target
research administrators already working in FACULTY SELECTION
the field with approximately five years of Faculty were selected based on
experience. The board also recommended particular criteria in regard to the standards
targeting career changers such as those in specified for graduate programs under the
the pharmaceutical industry and other Southern Association of Colleges and
industries experiencing layoffs, but having Schools Commission on Colleges , the
experience and education in areas such as regional body for the accreditation of
science that would be useful knowledge for degree-granting higher education
a research administrator. institutions for the region, the university’s
It was recommended that we create a policies for faculty teaching distance
diverse cohort of students with bachelor’s education programs, and the professional
7
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
8
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
9
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
The overarching goals of the MRA program no elective requirements. See Table 2 for a
are to: list of courses and brief descriptions of the
• Educate professional research content to be covered in the courses. Four of
administrators to address the issues the required courses (12 credit hours) are
facing our research organizations; currently offered in the Master of Public
• Integrate collaboration and participation Administration program. Eight new courses
of national experts in research into the (24 credit hours) were added to the
curriculum; university’s catalog. Existing courses were
• Foster a holistic and interdisciplinary modified to focus on topics and issues most
approach to problem solving in research prevalent to research administrators. For
administration issues; example, the current grant writing and
• Instill a sense of ethics and service to the management course has been targeted in
research community into new and the past for those primarily working in not-
current professionals; and for-profit organizations, which often are
• Address the need for providing involved in providing social programs and
excellence in research administration not in conducting research activities. The
within our nation. modified course will emphasize the specific
Areas of instruction are oriented toward requirements and regulations for the
the common challenges encountered in preparation and submission of research
research organizations during various proposals as opposed to community
phases of the research process, including: program proposals. The Public Program
project development, project and financial Evaluation Techniques course will be
management, the legal and regulatory modified to be applicable to the types of
requirements, compliance, technology research and evaluation projects of interest
transfer, leadership development, to research administrators. This course will
organizational models, and other areas such encompass the MRA program’s culminating
as ethics and ethical decision-making. project where students will be required to
The research administration degree develop a program evaluation plan for a
program consists of 36 semester credit research organization integrating the
hours at the graduate level. The twelve knowledge and skills developed in previous
courses are all required core courses with classes in the program.
10
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
11
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
12
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
13
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
accreditation body for such programs. will promote rigorous research into the
External reviews ensure the quality of a practice, methodologies, and the formation
degree program and provide some of theories related to the administration of
assurance and protection for interested research. Having advanced degree
professionals seeking an advanced degree programs means that tenure-earning faculty
in research administrator. Accreditation will be conducting research within research
encourages those who offer these programs administration who will need to publish
to closely examine their content, advocating their studies in multiple peer-reviewed
continuous improvement of programs and journals. Research published in the field
student performance. may also lead to the publication of
textbooks and other resources that could be
“Publications are important within used as part of the MRA course content.
any emerging professional field. In Currently, limited numbers of textbooks
related to research administration are
the near future it will be important
available.
to identify numerous peer-reviewed There are plans to extend the MRA
journals interested in research program in the near future to accept
administration that will promote international students. Having research
rigorous research into the practice, administrators from other countries
enrolled in the MRA program will
methodologies, and the formation
contribute to a better understanding of
of theories related to the
issues and challenges faced when
administration of research.” conducting international research
collaboration and will enable the building
Publications are important within any of global networks among research
emerging professional field. In the near administrators and research institutions and
future it will be important to identify programs.
numerous peer-reviewed journals
interested in research administration that
LITERATURE CITED
Atkinson, T. N., Gilleland, D. S., & Barrett, T. G. (2007). The dimensions of influence on research
administrator behavior: Toward a theoretical model of research administration as a
public service profession. Journal of Research Administration, 38, 55–65.
Beasley, K. L. (2006). History of research administration. In E. Kulakowski & L. Chronister
(Eds.), Research administration and management (pp. 9–29). Sudbury, MA: Jones and
Bartlett Publishers.
14
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2011). Career guide to industries, 2010–11
edition, Scientific Research and Development Services. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs053.htm
Cockburn, I. M., & Stern, S. (2010). Finding the endless frontier: Lessons from the life sciences
innovation system for technology policy. Capitalism and Society, 5(1). doi:10.2202/1932-
0213.1071
Kulakowski, E. C., & Chronister, L. U. (Eds.) (2006). Research administration and management.
Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1994). Designing effective instruction. New York:
Merrill.
Landen, M., & McCallister, M. (2006). The research administrator as a professional: Training
and development. In E. Kulakowski & L. Chronister (Eds.), Research administration and
management (pp. 75–82). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
National Council of University Research Administrators. (2009). Request for proposal
implementation planning grants for a master’s degree. Retrieved from
http://www.ncura.edu/content/docs/MastersImplementationGrant_RFP.pdf
National Council of University Research Administrators. (n.d.). Sponsored research administration:
A guide to effective strategies and recommended practices. Washington, DC: Atlantic
Information Services.
RACC 2008 Role Delineation Survey: Analysis Report. (2008, April). Professional Testing
Corporation, New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.cra-cert.org/RACC_2008-
03_RD_FinalReportDocument_Final.pdf
Roberts, T. J. (2005). Perceptions of research administrators on the value of certification.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Dissertation Abstracts International,
68/08, 2799.
Roberts, T. J., & House, J. (2008). Profile of a research administrator. Research Management
Review, 15(1), 41.
Roberts, T. J., Sanders, G., & Sharp, W. S. (2008). NCURA: The second twenty-five years.
Washington, DC: National Council of University Research Administrators.
Rockwell, S. (2009). The FDP faculty burden survey. Research Management Review, 16(2), 29–44.
Stanley, S. L., & McCartney, D. A. (2009). Balancing the burden of compliance and faculty
support. Research Management Review, 16(2), 14–21.
15
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
APPENDIX A
PLANNING TIMELINE
Sept. 2009 Department Chair, Assistant VP of Research, Senior Meetings to discuss and develop
Contracts Manager, Director of College Research proposal to NCURA for MRA
Center program
Oct. 2009 Department Chair, Assistant VP of Research, Senior Submitted proposal to NCURA
Contracts Manager, Director of College Research
Center
Dec. 2009 Department Chair, Assistant VP of Research, Senior Notification of Award from
Contracts Manager, Director of College Research NCURA
Center
Dec. 2009 Department Chair White paper Submitted to College
of Graduate Studies
Spring 2010 Vice Provost & Dean of Graduate Studies White Paper Approved
May–Aug. 2010 Department Chair, Assistant VP of Research, Senior Recruited and hired Program
Contracts Manager, Director of College Research Coordinator
Center
Aug.–Sept. 2010 Department Chair, Assistant VP of Research, Senior Advisory Board created
Contracts Manager, Director of College Research Identify program faculty
Center, MRA Advisory Broad Competencies identified
Draft curriculum
Sept. 2010 Department Chair, Program Coordinator, Vice Discuss implementation proposal
Provost & Dean of the Graduate College and forms
Sept. 2010 Department Chair, Program Coordinator Meeting College of Graduate
Committee
Sept. 2010 Department Chair, Program Coordinator, MRA Began writing the implementation
Advisory Board plan
Oct.–Dec. 2010 Department Chair, Program Coordinator, MRA Writing Implementation Plan
Advisory Board Develop Course Syllabi
Oct. 2010 Regional Campuses Director, Department Chair, Meeting Regional Campus to
Program Coordinator formulate program costs and
tuition and receive support for
new program
Oct.–Nov. 2010 Department Chair, Program Coordinator, Vice Meeting on Implementation Plan
Provost & Dean of Graduate Studies and draft submission
Revisions to draft
Oct. 2010 Department Chair, Program Coordinator Approval Department /College
Jan. 2011 Department Chair, Program Coordinator Approval Graduate Council
Feb. 2011 Department Chair, Program Coordinator Complete Final Draft
Send Proposal to BOT
March 2011 Regional Campuses Director, Department Chair, Meeting Regional Campus to
Program Coordinator discuss marketing new program
March 2011 Department Chair, Program Coordinator BOT approval sought and
obtained
16
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
17
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
18
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Jennifer Shambrook
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital
Thomas J. Roberts
Florida Gulf Coast University
Full-text Article PDF Online:
http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v18n1_2010_RA_Profile.pdf
ABSTRACT
This paper expands upon the seminal work of Roberts and House, which described the first
empirical study of the demographic profile of a research administrator. The original work was based
upon data from the 2005 Research Administrator Survey (RAS), a regional study of research
administrators in the southeastern United States. In this paper, nationwide demographic data from
the 2010 Research Administrators Stress Perception Survey (RASPerS) are compared to the 2005 RAS
data. These comparisons revealed that the general profile of a research administrator continues to be
overwhelmingly female (80.1%), holding a higher education degree (88.7%), and aged 40–49 years
(31.9%). The 2010 data showed an extremely significant difference in the modal salary level, which
increased from $50,000 to $74,999 (40.0%). In 2005, the increase was from $40,000 to $50,000 (23%).
Level of education was slightly higher in 2010 than in 2005, with more research administrators
holding both bachelor’s and master’s degrees. Additional demographic and social data are described
from the 2010 RASPerS. These include both work and non-work factors. These data are offered to
provide information that may be useful for others with an interest in expanding the body of
knowledge about the profession of research administration.
19
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
a profession. As pointed out by Beasley Who are the people who make up this
(2006), this emerging profession really came profession? Prior to the 2006 publication by
into being in the1940s after Vannevar Bush Roberts and House, solid empirical
persuaded President Franklin Delano demographic data did not exist for research
Roosevelt to create an agency that would administrators. In this paper, we update
coordinate collaboration between federal this seminal work using more recent
and civilian laboratories. Hanson and national, rather than regional, data.
Moreland (2004) reflected upon the Comparisons are made that both serve to
conundrum research administrators face in validate the original work and reveal some
their constant balancing between the differences that indicate professional trends.
sometimes competing demands of Finally, additional demographic factors
sponsoring agencies and over-worked have been added that provide baseline data
academic researchers. Research for additional studies that may seek to
administrators must assume many roles, expand the body of knowledge about this
perform both complex and mundane emerging profession.
functions, and act as a liaison with both
METHODS
internal and external parties. It takes a
Both the RAS (Roberts, 2005) and 2010
multi-talented and mission-dedicated
RASPerS (Shambrook, 2010) recruited
individual to thrive or succeed in the
participants from a closed population of
profession. And, as shown in the 2007
research administrators who were members
RASPerS (Shambrook & Brawman-Mintzer,
of the National Council of Research
2007), research administrators perceive this
Administrators (NCURA). The RAS
work to often be done in a stressful
recruited solely from NCURA Region III,
environment with little recognition from
which is comprised of eleven Southeastern
their non-administrative colleagues to
states and the Territory of Puerto Rico.
whom they are providing a service.
Through the selection and randomization
process described in Roberts and House
“Research administrators must (2006), there were 277 potential study
assume many roles, perform both participants for the electronic survey. The
complex and mundane functions, usable return rate was 83%, with 226 total
and act as a liaison with both survey participants. Thus, with a confidence
internal and external parties. It level of 99%, the confidence interval was
3.69.
takes a multi-talented and
The 2010 RASPerS (Shambrook, 2010)
mission-dedicated individual to modeled several demographic factors after
thrive or succeed in the the 2005 RAS in order to make valid
profession.” comparisons, but expanded recruitment to
include the entire nationwide membership
20
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
of NCURA. Expanding the catchment area future study in the 2006 RAS article
for recruitment was a recommendation for
Roberts and House (2006). The 2010 survey. As comparisons were being drawn
RASPerS also sought to make comparisons between multiple factors of the survey, the
with Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance N varied among the 12 survey instruments
Survey (BRFSS) data from the U.S. Centers which were combined to make up the
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). composite survey. However, for a 99%
Therefore, some factors were somewhat confidence level with a confidence interval
adjusted in the survey (e.g., salary ranges) of 4.0, only 891 responses were needed and
and others were added (e.g., ethnic heritage over 1,000 responses were collected for each
and marital status). It was the intent of the of the instruments, generating a 99% level
2010 RASPerS questionnaire to generate of confidence and confidence intervals of
data that could be compared with data from less than 4.0 for each instrument.
both previous surveys (RAS and BRFSS). Approved protocols for human
The National Institute of Occupational participant protections were in place by the
Safety and Health (NIOSH, n.d.) Non-Work appropriate Institutional Review Boards for
Factors Scale from the NIOSH Generic Job the RAS at the University of Central Florida
Stress Questionnaire was used to collect and 2010 RASPerS at Walden University.
information about other commitments (e.g., Data were analyzed using both descriptive
eldercare or pursuing another academic and inferential techniques. Frequencies and
degree). percentages are shown for all factors.
The composite 2010 RASPerS Fisher’s Exact Test was used in comparing
questionnaire consists of 12 components two factors and Cochran-Armitage Trend
which include demographic data, non-work Test was used for multiple factors to
activities, three instruments for health determine statistical level of significance.
behaviors, and seven stress-related
RESULTS
instruments. These are preceded by an
Work-related Factors
introduction, participant rights statement,
Work-related data gathered by the 2010
and statement of consent.
RASPerS included primary research
The data collection process began with
administration role, number of years in
an email to the entire membership of
research administration, certified research
NCURA with a link to the 2010 RASPerS
administrator status, annual salary, usual
electronic survey. The total population of
number of hours worked per week, and
the NCURA membership was 6,232 at the
health insurance status. These data are
time of the survey in February 2010. A total
shown at Table 1.
of 1,188 participants took portions of the
21
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
22
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
23
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
24
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
RASPerS 2010 national data show that (2.7%). Less than one percent (0.6%)
research administration is a profession that reported only having a high school
is 80.1% female. The modal age group was education or GED, or only seven out of
40–49 years, at 31.9%, closely followed by 1,146 participants. Master’s degrees were
50–59 years at 28.9%. Only 30.8% were held by 37.3% and doctoral degrees were
under 40 years of age. Over 70% of research held by 10%.
administrators reported being either NIOSH Non-Work Factors
married (65.5%) or partnered (5.3%). A total Additional non-work demographic
of 1.1% reported being widowed; 14.7% factors were measured in the 2010 RASPerS
reported having never been married; and which were considered as possible
only 13.5% were either separated (1.1%) or contributing factors to overall stress
divorced (12.4%). These data reflect a (NIOSH, n.d.). These factors are offered
similar distribution to that reported by the here to further describe the demographic
Pew Charitable Trusts (PEW), with 64% of make-up of research administrators shown
college-educated adults being married (Pew in Table 3. These factors include participant
Charitable Trusts, 2010). reporting of an additional job; children in
Research administrators the home; primary responsibility for
overwhelmingly reported educational childcare duties, house-cleaning duties, or
achievement of bachelor’s degree or higher care for an elderly or disabled person;
at 88.7%. Of the 11.3% without a higher current enrollment in courses for a degree;
degree, 10.7% reported having either some and/or a high level of time commitment to
college (7.9%) or an associate’s degree volunteer work.
25
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
26
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Participants reporting having extensive to determine the validity of the 2005 RAS
non-family related commitments included regional data by comparison with the 2010
14.3% having an additional job and 14.3% RASPerS national data. A p –value equal to
being currently enrolled in courses leading or less than 0.05 indicates a significant
to a degree. A higher percentage, 26.9%, difference between data sets. As shown in
reported devoting at least 5–10 hours each Table 4, no significant difference is shown
week to volunteer work in addition to their among gender, age, or education when
research administration jobs. comparing the results of the two data sets.
Children living in the home were There is a weak (non-significant) difference
reported by 40.9% of the participants, but in education, which indicates that a trend
only 26.2% reported having primary may be developing toward higher
responsibility for childcare duties. Primary educational attainment. The only significant
responsibility for care of an elderly or difference shown was in the area of salaries,
disabled person was reported by 10.1%. which were significantly higher in 2010 than
Participants overwhelmingly reported in 2005. In 2005, only six out of ten
having primary responsibility for house- participants reported having annual
cleaning duties at 74.2%. earnings of greater than $50,000; in 2010,
Comparisons of 2005 RAS and 2010 eight out of ten reported having earnings
RASPerS greater than $50,000 per year. This indicates
Table 4 shows a comparison between an extremely significant difference between
the regional 2005 RAS and the national 2010 annual incomes reported for 2005 and 2010.
RASPerS. The purpose of this analysis was
27
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Table 4. Comparison of Selected Demographic Factors from 2005 RAS and 2010 RASPerS
Demographic Factor 2005 RAS 2010 RASPerS Significance
N (%) N (%) P value
Gender
• Female 172 (76%) 915 (80%) 0.18a
• Male 54 (24%) 228 (20%)
Totals 226 (100%) 1,143 (100%)
Age
• <30 7 (3%) 87 (7.6%) 0.47b
• 30–39 55 (24%) 266 (23.2%)
• 40–49 82 (36%) 365 (31.9%)
• 50–59 66 (29%) 331 (28.9%)
• > 60 16 (8%) 96 (8.4%)
Totals 226 (100%) 1,145 (100%)
Highest Level of Educational Achievement
• High school or GED 5 (2%) 7 (0.6%) 0.057b
• Some college credit 29 (13%) 90 (7.9%)
• Associate’s degree 3 (1%) 31 (2.7%)
• Bachelor’s degree 89 (40%) 475 (41.4%)
• Master’s degree 73 (32%) 428 (37.3%)
• Doctoral degree 27 (12%) 115 (10.0%)
Totals 226 (100%) 1,146 (100%)
Salary as Research Administrator
• < $50,000/year 86 (39%) 234 (21%) <0.0001a
• > $50,000/year 136 (61%) 954 (79%)
Totals 222 (100%) 1,138 (100%)
a: Fisher’s Exact Test p-values
b: Cochran-Armitage Trend Test p-value
Notes:
• Gender and Age distribution does not seem to change from 2005 to 2010.
• There seems to be some evidence of an overall trend of having higher level of education in 2010
compared to 2005, while this finding is not strong.
• There is a significant change from 2005 to 2010 in salary, where every 8 out 10 people have
salaries above $50,000 in 2010 while only 6 out of 10 did so in 2005.
28
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LITERATURE CITED
29
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Hansen, S., & Moreland, K. (2004). The Janus face of research administration. Research
Management Review, 14(1), 43–53.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (n.d.). Generic Job Stress Questionnaire.
Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/workorg/tools/niosh-job-
stress-questionnaire.html.
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2010). The decline of marriage and rise of new families. Retrieved December
27, 2010 from http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/11/pew-social-trends-2010-
families.pdf)
Roberts, T. J. (2005). Perceptions of research administrators on the value of certification. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Central Florida. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68/08, 2799.
Roberts, T. J., & House, J. (2006). Profile of a research administrator. Research Management
Review, 15(1), 41–47.
Shambrook, J. (2010). Health behavior, occupational stress, and stress resiliency in research
administrators working in the academic environment. Doctoral dissertation, Walden
University. Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 3412291.
30
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Linnea Minnema
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Full-text Article PDF Online:
http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v18n1_Minnema.pdf
ABSTRACT
Federally sponsored research funding sources are not stagnant programs. Many things influence the
nature of research, not all of them purely scientific. Historically significant events draw public
attention to causes, and in the age of immediate information those events can have a powerful and
lasting impact on research funding. September 11, 2001 is a day America will never forget, and
because of this major event, sponsored research focused on protecting the nation from attack and
building up national defense became a high priority. Similarly, while the nation has been mired in
recession from late 2007 up to the present day, job creation through research funding became an
important focus for the nation and has led to the passing of an enormous funding package to
accomplish this task. Neither of these events has a foundation in academic research, but both have
had a significant impact on research and how research administrators operate on a daily basis.
31
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
how those funds are distributed to scientists post-September 11th climate. It included a
are impacted. Events such as the terrorist dramatic increase for homeland security
attack on September 11th, 2001 caused a efforts from $19.5 billion to $37.7 billion
dramatic effect that is still felt in the (U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
research community today. Other events, 2008, p. 6). In his June 2002 address to the
such as what is being called “The Great nation, President Bush outlined his plan for
Recession”, also created public outcry for improved homeland security, which
government action and once again caused included building on an existing framework
research to fundamentally change. Because for funding basic and applied research in
of these changes, the work of research order to develop strategic tools for the
administrators is constantly shifting to meet advancement of homeland security. He
the new demands of federal sponsors and stated “The new Department would
the compliance requirements that consolidate and prioritize the disparate
accompany alterations to the research homeland security related research and
funding system. The following case studies development programs currently scattered
demonstrate how historically significant throughout the Executive Branch” (U.S.
events, specifically the September 11th Department of Homeland Security, 2002, p.
terrorist attacks and the Great Recession, 4). Funding for research and development
have a direct effect on the enterprise of would now be consolidated under the new
sponsored research. Department of Homeland Security, which
CASE STUDY: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 would be responsible for determining and
adhering to appropriate federal compliance
TERRORIST ATTACKS regulations.
On September 11th, 2001 the world
changed forever with the terrorist attacks
“The changes enacted by the U.S.
on New York City and the Pentagon in
Washington, DC. The nation mourned
government in the days, weeks,
together and simultaneously turned to months, and years following
elected leadership for solutions and a way September 11th have profoundly
to respond. altered the landscape of U.S. policy,
The changes enacted by the U.S. and research has been affected by
government in the days, weeks, months, these changes.”
and years following September 11th have
profoundly altered the landscape of U.S. In addition to changes in the
policy, and research has been affected by organization of the federal government’s
these changes. approach to homeland security, it began to
In February 2002, President George W. take a more active approach to the
Bush released the first federal budget in a protection of information and its transfer to
32
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
groups and countries that could potentially strict policy guidelines for information
use it to harm the nation or its allies. requiring government review prior to
Increased emphasis on export control public release.2 Clauses, such as DEAR 952-
regulations meant that research done in a 204.73 Facility Clearance, were also
university setting could be subject to the augmented in early 2002 as a direct result of
control of the U.S. Department of State, the need to more closely monitor activities
Directorate of Defense Trade Controls that had once been perceived as free from
International Traffic in Arms Regulations potential malice.
(ITAR) (U.S. Department of State, 2010) and Finally, the President and Congress
the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau proceeded to enact unprecedented increases
of Industry and Security Export in the budget for the U.S. Department of
Administration Regulations (EAR) (Export Defense—another measure put into place in
Administration Regulations Database, the wake of an attack that had revealed a
2010). These regulations had been in force nation unprepared to defend itself against
since their development during the Cold assault. The budget for the DoD in fiscal
War period, but increased scrutiny on year 2002 was $328.9 billion (U.S.
seemingly innocuous things following an Department of Defense, 2003). By fiscal year
attack using ordinary passenger jets 2011, the budget grew to $708 billion for
mandated that the government more closely defense, including $159 billion to fund
monitor things previously viewed as ongoing military operations in Afghanistan
innocent, such as the research and and Iraq (U.S. Department of Defense,
development enterprises in place at 2011).
universities around the country. Besides
DIRECT RESULT FOR RESEARCH
this increased emphasis on specific export
AND RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION
control regulations, other restrictions began
to appear in contract terms. Clauses were
In the aftermath of the September 11th
included in federal contracts that
attacks, researchers found themselves with
dramatically restricted the freedom of
an opportunity to participate in the defense
investigators to hire foreign nationals as
of the nation through their laboratories. The
graduate students and post-doctoral
new U.S. Department of Homeland Security
scholars.1 Some contracts were saddled with
pursued a research agenda that had been
clauses to completely restrict any
consolidated into one agency and that was
publication of the results of a project in
ready to push out funding in the name of
order to avoid disclosing national security
protecting the nation and its people. New
secrets. By early 2002, funding agencies
organizations such as the Transportation
with specific national security interests,
Security Administration were founded
such as the Army Research Laboratory,
under the auspices of the new DHS and
even began to issue new clauses containing
quickly began to push for the improvement
33
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
34
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Since the September 11th attacks, the research administrator has become
dramatic uptick in funding for the DoD has increasingly valued at many institutions, as
had the most significant impact on research. the number of proposals submitted has
In light of tighter controls and the idea of increased but the disparity in funding
“sensitive but unclassified” work, funding among federal agencies has led to a drop in
through contracts with the DoD is more the percentage of successful proposals.
involved and requires more oversight than According to data presented in March 2011
it did prior to the September 11th attacks. at the National Science Foundation Regional
More negotiation is required at the Grants Conference, of 21,792 proposals
beginning of a contract to promote the submitted in 2001, 31% were awarded
proper balance between protection and funding. By fiscal year 2010, the number of
freedom of scientific collaboration, as well proposals submitted had almost doubled to
as increased monitoring of the project 42,547, but the percent awarded funding
throughout the period of performance to had decreased to just 23%. Arguments can
see that basic research does not cross a line
into applied research without the proper “As the requirements continue to
control mechanisms in place. However, the
increase, the knowledge and
more dramatic effect of this budget increase
expertise of the research
is what has not happened during this
period. From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year administrator must also continue
2009, as the DoD budget increased by more to grow and expand in order for
than 50%, the budget for the National the faculty to remain
Institutes of Health (NIH) was increased by competitive.”
less than 13% (National Institutes of Health,
2011). The National Science Foundation be made regarding which areas of research
(NSF) budget was increased by just over and research administration were most
21% (National Science Foundation, 2011). dramatically impacted, but for better or
While research dollars were stagnant, the worse, researchers have come to rely
DoD budget went from billions of dollars to heavily on the expertise of research
almost three-fourths of a trillion dollars administrators in departments and central
each year. offices in order to increase the chances that
Arguments have been made that the their proposal will be scored as competitive.
funding stagnation in these critical areas of This need for experienced research
basic scientific research could cause an administrators to guide the faculty has
entire generation of scientists to leave the directly impacted everything from
profession before they can establish biomedical research to research related to
themselves due to a lack of support (Casey, national defense. As the requirements
2008). In this new reality, the role of the continue to increase, the knowledge and
35
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
expertise of the research administrator must for tax cuts, education, health care, and
also continue to grow and expand in order unemployment benefits, and for federal
for the faculty to remain competitive. grants and contracts investment.
36
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
37
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
38
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
produces better research oversight by the their district and in their hometowns. These
institution. individuals are in turn influenced by
ENDNOTES
1. i.e., DEAR 952.204-71 Sensitive Foreign Nations Controls; Army Corps of Engineers ER
52.0000—4017 – Foreign Nationals.
2. ARL 52.005-4401Release of Information.
39
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
LITERATURE CITED
40
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
U.S. Department of Defense. (2011). DOD releases defense reviews, 2011 budget proposal, and
2010 war funding supplemental request – Update,
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13281
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2002). The Department of Homeland Security.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/book.pdf
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). Brief Documentary History of the Department
of Homeland Security 2001–2008, History Office,
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/brief_documentary_history_of_dhs_2001_2008.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Labor force database.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
U.S. Department of State. (2010). International traffic in arms regulations 2010.
http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar_official.html
University of Tennessee. (2008). Export Control Management System. Office of Research, Export
Control. http://research.utk.edu/exportcontrol/pdfs/excon_system_2008.pdf
University of Tennessee. (2009). Post-award financial administration reporting. Sponsored
Projects Accounting. http://web.utk.edu/~spa/ARRA.html
University of Tennessee, Knoxville. (n.d.). Office of Research, Export Control.
http://research.utk.edu/exportcontrol/
Witherspoon, M. R., & Brady, D. (2009). Export control compliance, The Roth ITAR case: Criminal
export violations in university sponsored research. Presentation at the NCURA Annual
Meeting, Washington, DC.
www.ncura.edu/content/educational.../51/.../Fri_1030AM_12noon_D.pptx
41
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Adopting the
Transformational Leadership Perspective
in a Complex Research Environment
Timothy N. Atkinson and Tom Pilgreen
University of Central Arkansas
Full-text Article PDF Online:
http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v18n1_Atkinson_Pilgreen.pdf
ABSTRACT
Transformational Leadership is a popular topic among leadership scholars, but for research
administrators, Transformational Leadership might seem like an enigmatic approach given its
various contexts. Research administrators might think the transformational approach is only for
executives, or that they do not have enough staff to call themselves transformational leaders, or that
organizational transformations belong at the level of chief executive or the board. Bass (1990) noted
that transformational leadership can be taught, learned, and practiced. The following argument
supports this statement, promotes Transformational Leadership as an acceptable approach for
research administrators, illustrates how different philosophies can be integrated into
Transformational Leadership, and provides an illustration of the various ways Transformational
Leadership can be applied.
42
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
43
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
44
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
45
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
leader and the organization. For purposes be” as in laissez-faire leadership or to “get
of this analysis, from this point forward, the job done or lose my job” as in
followers will be referred to as constituents Transactional Leadership (Bass, 1990).
in order to move further away from the Northouse (2004) noted that the
“people are machines” model as well as the strengths of the TL model are that it allows
“people are entirely dependent on the for multiple perspectives, it is intuitive, and
leader” model (Warden, 2011). it is process-based (Table 2). Another
With TL, the constituent feels involved strength is that the process seems intuitive
with and finds meaning in the work, to the leader because of the focus on the
because the leader interacts with them follower’s needs.
rather than hiring them only to “let them
46
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
47
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
feedback between parties and making the and the relationship begins somewhere in
individual feel included in the work. the future. In the realm of unshared
Mentoring is a good framework for this experiences the leader and follower make
dimension because of the focus on trust. connections and find commonalities. As the
Webster’s Dictionary defines a mentor as “A relationship builds, each party learns
trusted counselor or guide”. Using this something new about the other, moving the
strategy, it seems that a leader would be relationship beyond organizational
engaging in Transformational Leadership at position, face, and stature. The relationship
the individual consideration level. is more personal. After all, according to
When the leader acts as mentor, he or Bass (1990, 1999), personal attention, faith,
she has to focus on consistency and trust in and pride of association are key
the relationship. The leader makes a components of IC.
conscious decision to move away from that The transformational leader should not
which tends to create a toxic leadership use the mentoring tool to seek total
style (Goldman, 2009, in Warden, 2011). A psychological control—some have
counselor also provides advice, so the suggested TL might cause leaders to do this
Transformational Leader might find (Northouse, 2004), but leaders should use
themselves in a passive mode but still the tool to build mutual respect. Influence
leading. This is not necessarily Laissez-Faire over the individual, it seems at this stage,
Leadership either. The leader is not would become easier because of the trust
omniscient and cannot know all. But by built between the two parties. If trust exists,
resisting the urge to speak and lead, by the ethical transformational leader should
settling down to listen to the environment, a not take advantage of the relationship for
leader can build trust that can help selfish means. Truly, human behavior is
empower the relationship between the inconsistent and unpredictable; one would
leader and the constituent, and as the trust hope that the ethical leader would not
builds, constituents emerge. People will choose a manipulative approach.
come to the leader for advice because of his It is clear, however, that mentoring is a
or her experience and position and, finally, powerful tool for engaging in
trust. In order to do this effectively, it is Transformational Leadership through
suggested that the transformational leader Individual Consideration. It is not being
might recognize and take the stance that the suggested here that the leader should drop
mentor and protege relationship begins at professionalism and “make friends” with
the intersection of two lives. his/her subordinates. In many cases it will
Consider Figure 2. The leader and the still be necessary to maintain a professional
protege begin their lives at different stages distance in the relationship.
48
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Within the realm of unshared trying to trick and manipulate each other
experiences, how would the via insincere means. Trickery and
transformational leader go about sharing manipulation are all around us and a basic
these experiences and which ones are fact of life, but the TL transcends this
appropriate? Bertrand (2004) noted that behavior through trust.
each individual has a view of him/herself as The perspective aligns with Warden
a “universal me” that contains many of the (2011), who suggested that if leaders want
elements of human nature that can be to orient themselves for change, it would be
shared, or can be used for learning and necessary to adopt the perspectives of
teaching (Figure 3; Table 3). Bertrand (2004) “natality” and “mortality salience” where
noted that all individuals possess habits natality encourages the leader to think of
that can be both annoying or endearing; new ideas and mortality salience
each individual deals with imperfections encourages the leader to remember, echoing
and tries to hide them; almost all humans Bertrand (2004), that all humans face the
want to know their destiny, where they will same final destiny. Built into mortality
end up in life, how they will die. Humans salience, noted Warden (2011), is also an
crave meaning. But at the same time, people impulse to resist the fear of death while
must deal with other “Fake People” or recognizing the fate.
people pretending to be something else, or
49
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Table 3. Proposed Ways to Integrate Other Theories with the Transformational Leadership
Process
Transformational Leadership Dimensions Models Considered
Idealized Influence (II) Mentoring
(Bertrand, 1978, 2004, etc.)
Linguistic Strategies
(Brown & Levinson, 1987)
Inspirational Motivation (IM) Social Semiotics
(Chandler, 2007; Danesi, 2007; van Leeuwen,
2008, etc.)
Attribution Theory
(Weiner, 2010; etc.)
Intellectual Stimulation (IS) Creativity Research
(Estes & Ward, 2002)
Individual Consideration (IC) Mentoring
Linguistic Strategies
(Brown & Levinson, 1987)
Many of these elements cross cultures, takes on a new meaning, and it becomes
too. Some cultures emphasize some of these clear that the transformational leader’s
elements over others, but in the end people influence can be expanded in a very
share many of the same problems, powerful and meaningful way.
challenges, hopes, and dreams. When seen
in this light, Transformational Leadership
50
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
51
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Figure 4. Positive Face Illustrated for the Sake of Idealized Influence of the TL Model
52
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Figure 5. Negative Face Illustrated for the Sake of Idealized Influence of the TL Model
53
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
At this point it should be obvious how As the analysis proceeds, more overlap
closely Idealized Influence (II) and among the factors should be obvious,
Individual Consideration (IC) are specifically when it comes to Inspirational
interconnected. Both strategies, saving face Motivation (IM) and Intellectual
and assuming a mentoring posture, are Stimulation (IS). The concepts were
probably good strategies to use as a presented in this order on purpose because
transformational leader, but not the only it seems that in order for the
strategies. It would be important for the transformational leader to get to the IM and
leader-scholar to explore more strategies to IS dimensions, he/she must have first
build his/her leadership perspective. The established a rapport with the protege,
transformational leader would see the subordinate, or colleague.
model in Figure 6 as fluid and perhaps add
more arrows as he/she accounts for context,
preference, and study.
54
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
scholar should use them to see the sign was defined as “what we see and hear
possibilities. It could be said that the core of plus what we think about what was seen
IM is to for the transformational leader to and heard”. Using YouTube, an inventory
manipulate words and symbols in a way of videos was created that depicted various
that motivates people to act around a pre-game rituals found among sports teams
shared sense of duty. It sounds intentional. (Table 4). Sports was chosen for this
But the truth is that leaders use symbols demonstration because rituals are often
and words, both intentionally and used as a “motivating” factor and emotions
unintentionally, to manipulate the thoughts run high. In the following inventory, some
and feelings of others (Danesi, 2007; van of the sports represented were American
Leewen, 2005). The fact is well-established. football, soccer, and rugby. The dominant
The literature on this topic is expansive, but theme among these rituals was that the
it might help the transformational leader to team expressed an increased sense of
look to various works in semiotics to find excitement as the ritual was performed. For
some strategies for motivating and inspiring rugby and American football, the fans could
people. be heard screaming and yelling their
To demonstrate how symbols and signs excitement in response to the ritual, which
affect behavior and motivation, a “sign added another dimension to the effect signs
inventory” was created following in the and symbols have on individuals. Some
tradition of semiotic inquiry (van Leewen, common semiotic themes were rhythmic
2005). Creating sign inventories is one of the motion and chanting, hopping, and
methods sign scholars use to examine screaming fans. Watching the rituals was
communication in life (Danesi, 2007; van typically inspiring and it seemed
Leewen, 2005). Following van Leewen motivating for the team.
(2005) and many others, for this analysis a
55
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
56
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
within the individual’s own set of beliefs insights and tools for a transformational
and values. leader as expert motivator. Weiner’s (2010)
Attribution Theory seems to address explanation is extensive and involves a long
many aspects of internal motivation. The history of research that is not covered here,
Attribution Theory Model explained by but he provides a simple model that
Weiner (2010) provides very compelling explains the theory in summary (Figure 7).
Weiner noted that people evaluate their themselves or problems caused by other
success and failures on some very basic people or factors. Within the problems that
observations about the world around them. they cause, people will attribute their
As Weick (1995) noted, people are success and failure to their own innate
sensemakers in an organization and often abilities, such as talent or skill, or they will
develop their own theories about why attribute success or failure to how much
things happen the way they do, why things effort they actually put into the project. If
happen to them, and what control they have people do not blame themselves, they will
over it or not. Basically, Weiner (2010) said say it was because of something else, such
that when things happen to people in as how difficult the task was for them or
organizations, they may attribute these attribute it to just plain luck. Ability is a
causes to either problems they cause factor that changes slowly over time, and
57
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
depending on the difficulty of the task, is for the ability to think about things in
variable among individuals. If an individual different ways.
realizes that they have given sub-standard
INFORMING INTELLECTUAL
effort to the project, the transformational
leader might be able to pinpoint ways to
STIMULATION (IS)
IS is part of TL. It shares elements with
encourage them to do better—perhaps by
Creativity Research. Therefore, Creativity
using techniques mentioned under
Research can inform TL. If the
Idealized Influence. If people are blaming
transformational leader finds a situation
the difficulty of the task, it might be
that seems uncontrollable and is affecting
necessary for the leader to assign a different
colleague performance, it would help to get
team or encourage people to think more
people to think about things in different
creatively. Truly, luck plays a factor, too,
ways. Some answers may lie in work done
but luck is something that is obviously out
by Estes and Ward (2002), who noted that
of the leader’s locus of control.
creative people are able to modify concepts
If the task seems difficult, and the
and create new ways of looking at things in
transformational leader needs to encourage
a process called “emergence”.
creativity, this could be a problem. The
Emergence arises from “concept
leader probably has some control over task
combination”, which quite simply involves
difficulty, but not much. Much of it truly
taking two unrelated concepts and
depends on how much people believe in
combining them in a way that creates new
their own innate abilities. As in research
meaning (Figure 8).
administration, the external factors such as
rules and regulations are quite stable over
time and controlled by factors outside of the
leader’s control. Conditions like these call
58
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
In addition, two other factors are Estes and Ward (2002) creativity study to a
involved in enhancing emergence during greater extent. Estes and Ward recruited 221
concept combination: relevance and students from a psychology course and
typicality (Estes & Ward, 2002). Each found that when the participants applied
concept has various dimensions that are non-typical features to concepts, emergence
relevant and typical to that dimension, but increased at a statistically significant rate,
in concept combination, dimensions that are but at the same time “extreme irrelevance”
not typical tend to generate emergence. created the greatest emergence (Estes &
Research administrators run into this Ward, 2002, p. 153).
problem all the time. On the fly, non-typical Though Estes and Ward’s (2002)
events seem to catch unexpectedly and they research primarily deals with linguistic
are required to create a new way of thinking concepts, they go on to say that “concept
about things. To illustrate how relevance combination” is involved in general forms
and typicality work in this situation, Estes of idea generation, problem-solving, and
and Ward (2002) provided this illustration: insight, and has “potential applications for
science, art and business” (p. 149).
“...a relevant dimension of the concept A transformational leader could do this
shark is its temperament, and a typical in practice by encouraging regular
feature on that dimension is aggressive, brainstorming sessions to cause different
whereas an atypical feature is harmless. team members to think about mundane
An example of an irrelevant dimension
practices in a new light. It would be a good
of shark is its color, because color is not
time to ask what is typical about the
ordinarily important when considering
routines performed in the office, ask
a shark. The colors gray and black are
typical and atypical, respectively, of questions such as “why do we do it this
sharks” (Estes & Ward, 2002, p. 150). way” or “are there more relevant or creative
ways to get the job done more efficiently?”
It is interesting to note that idea It would not matter if the problems were
generation does not work for every solved; it would simply matter that the
combination. It requires some thought and transformational leader moved people
some work, but the technique can be toward thinking about things in a new way
learned. For instance, Estes and Ward (2002) that is a hallmark dimension of the
used the example, “cloudy enemy”, which Transformational Leadership perspective or
seemed irrelevant as a new concept based process. Encouraging the practice of
on various inter-rater reliability tests. The creativity, it seems, would eventually aid
phrase simply does not work very well. more solutions to problems in the long run.
To emphasize the details of how a Also, the research in this field seems to
transformational leader might apply these verify many of the ideas that research
concepts in practice, it helps to examine the administrators use to solve problems
59
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
60
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
61
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
LITERATURE CITED
62
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Erbert, L. A., & Floyd, K. (2004). Affectionate expressions as face-threatening acts: Receiver
assessments. Communication Studies, 55(2), 254–270.
Estes, Z., & Ward, T. B. (2002). The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification.
Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 149–156.
Gibbons, T. C. (1986). Revisiting the question of born vs. made: Toward a theory of development of
transformational leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fielding Institute, Santa
Barbara, CA.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago, IL: Adrine.
Goldman, A. (2009). Transforming toxic leaders. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hamilton, Z. (2010). Support from chief executives to sponsored programs administration at
baccalaureate universities in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden
University.
Harle, T. (2011). Fractal leadership: Emerging patterns for transformation. In J. D. Barbour & G.
R. Hickman (Eds.), Leadership for transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jones, M. (2011). Transforming leadership through the power of the imagination. In J. D.
Barbour & G. R. Hickman (Eds.), Leadership for transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mohr, J. M. (2011). Improvising transformation: Leadership lessons from improvisational
theatre. In J. D. Barbour & G. R. Hickman (Eds.), Leadership for transformation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Roberts, T. (2006). Everyone’s mentor: Perceptions of research administrators on the value of
certification. Journal of Research Administration, 37(2), 17–29.
Shambrook, J. (2010). Health behavior, occupational stress, and stress resiliency in research
administrators working in the academic environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Walden University.
van Leewen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Warden, G. (2011). Natality as leadership for transformation: Orienting the influence for change.
In J. D. Barbour & G. R. Hickman (Eds.), Leadership for transformation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensmaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of
ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28–36.
Wheatly, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (2nd ed.).
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
63
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Robert Porter
University of Tennessee
Full-text Article PDF Online:
http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v18n1_Porter.pdf
ABSTRACT
Conventional wisdom says that the way to win more awards is to get researchers writing more
proposals. Yet many incentives designed to stimulate proposal development can be hard on the
bottom line, especially those that pay researchers for their time or to attend grant-writing workshops
presented by outside consulting firms. This paper presents ten inexpensive strategies the research
office can use to stimulate researchers to write more and better proposals. Most of these techniques
require little more than efficient use of existing institutional resources.
64
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
into action. For research administration to more and better proposals. As evidence of
lead in an increasingly competitive this national trend, one need only cite the
environment, a good case can be made that creation and rapid growth of the National
we need to focus more of our energies Organization of Research Development
upstream, where researchers may or may Professionals (NORDP). Now in its third
not be thinking of writing a proposal in the year, NORDP currently lists 271 members
first place. from 154 institutions, and has become an
effective national forum for the exchange of
“For research administration to best practices related to research
development (Falk-Krzesinski, 2011;
lead in an increasingly
NORDP, 2011). A quick survey of topics
competitive environment, a good
presented at annual meetings of NCURA
case can be made that we need to and SRA shows an increasing emphasis on
focus more of our energies research development, from the practical
upstream, where researchers may skills of grant writing to the subtleties of
or may not be thinking of writing forming and facilitating new
a proposal in the first place.” interdisciplinary research teams.
TEN STRATEGIES
A FIELD IN TRANSITION Here are ten ways to get more winning
In recent years, research administration proposals coming in the pre-award door.
has been transitioning to a mixed Accompanying the rationale for each
“line/staff” model, where newly hired strategy, there are practical tips for
proposal development specialists have been implementing and managing the endeavor.
actively engaged in a variety of initiatives
designed to get more researchers writing
65
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
66
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
67
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
accommodate. Be sure to promote the NSF and NIH, and offer to present relevant
availability of the collection and keep it updates at their retreats. Even if you have
updated. not attended a recent conference, these
The research office web site at the agencies often post slides of key conference
University of Tennessee features a presentations on their web sites; you can
Grantseekers Tool Kit, a collection of pick and choose which ones would be of
helpful materials that includes successful most interest to any given audience. Before
proposals from a variety of sources. the retreat, search funding databases such
What if your store of institutional COS, InfoEd SPIN, and the Foundation
proposals is limited? Copies of winning Directory Online for grants targeted to the
proposals in many disciplines can be discipline at hand. Select a dozen or
purchased from The Grant Center at synopses of programs that appear most
reasonable rates. The National Institute of promising and distribute copies at the
Allergy and Infectious Diseases has posted retreat. You will be surprised to see how
four recent R01 proposals with reviewers’ many faculty are unaware of programs
comments using the new NIH per review from major agencies that are repeated on an
scoring system. A well-written NSF annual basis.
proposal is also available. Finally, successful 6. Mentor Matchmaking
proposals can be obtained directly from Young investigators can find themselves
federal agencies under the Freedom of in a lonely “sink or swim” environment
Information Act with a simple request, but when it comes to sponsored research, and
be prepared to wait four to six weeks for the many are hesitant to approach experienced
documents to arrive, with sensitive grant writers on their own. Unfortunately,
information redacted, such as investigator institutions that provide structured
salaries and intellectual property. mentoring systems are more the exception
5. Departmental Retreats than the rule—an odd irony, since senior
Department heads at research researchers, especially those in academic
institutions are always eager to expand their settings, are usually willing to share their
portfolios of sponsored projects, and annual wisdom if the circumstances are right. So
retreats provide excellent opportunities for what are the “right circumstances” for low
grants specialists to provide useful cost mentoring? First and foremost,
information, including updates on funding recognize that busy senior researchers are
opportunities, data on proposal award jealous guardians of their time. To be
activity, and a review of the support effective as a matchmaker, the grants
services offered by the research office. To specialist must be both coach and
get on the agenda, let department heads cheerleader. Start by working with the new
know about recent grants conferences you investigator to clarify promising research
have attended, such as those sponsored by ideas and possible funding sources. The
68
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
69
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
government and private agencies. Hot links those within driving distance should do this
to several concise, highly readable materials on a regular basis. Experienced grant
should be featured on the research office’s writers view these pre-proposal discussions
web page and promoted via the awards as critical to their success. Newcomers to
newsletter and other channels of the sponsored research game are
communication. The Grantseekers Tool Kit unnecessarily hesitant about this, as they
page at the University of Tennessee features are uncertain how they will be received. In
numerous guides, articles and manuals— fact, most POs are highly receptive to such
some of general interest, others focused on meetings, for practical reasons:
specific funding agencies. 1) Listening to new ideas for research can be
9. Helping Researchers Get on Review an effective way for a deskbound
Panels program officer to learn about possible
Serving on a review panel is like a new directions in the field.
graduate education in grant writing: This is 2) If the research idea is not a good fit, these
where researchers learn to step out of their conversations can reduce the number of
academic boxes and write to the needs and noncompetitive proposals that must be
expectations of the folks who have a great processed.
deal to say about where the money goes 3) If it is a good fit, the PO can offer helpful
(Porter, 2005). Because the major agencies tips to shape the proposal for success.
need thousands of new reviewers each year, 4) Such meetings are a good way to recruit
grant program officers are constantly on the new talent for future review panels.
lookout for fresh talent. When young If travel to the DC area is not practical,
investigators have honed their core research new investigators should be encouraged to
theme into a brief two or three paragraph look for grant program officers at meetings
project summary, they are well advised to of their academic disciplines, as POs are
send that all important first e-mail to the encouraged to attend such events.
appropriate PO, inquiring whether the basic 10. Coaching and Editing
idea is a good fit with the program (Porter, Many, if not most, young researchers
2009). If the response is encouraging, the struggle with grant writing. Even those
next e-mail should express a desire to serve with impressive publishing records can find
on a review panel, and include a brief it frustrating to shift from dense academic
résumé with picture attached. It is not prose to a concise, energetic proposal
uncommon for young investigators to be writing style. This is where the grants
invited to serve, either on a panel or as a specialist as a coach and editor can provide
mail reviewer, even before they have help that could make the difference
submitted their first proposal. between failure and success. Good grant
Though trips to visit with POs can be writing is mostly a matter of rewriting, and
expensive for researchers in some locations, if the core idea is fundable, it is well worth
70
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
LITERATURE CITED
71
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
U.S. Department of Energy. (2011). Office of Science: Strategic Plans. Retrieved April 19, 2011
from www.science.energy.gov/bes/news-and-resources/strategic-plans/.
72
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
William F. Ferreira
Hogan Lovells US LLP
ABSTRACT
Federal sponsorship of collaboration between academic institutions and industry is on the rise.
Many government programs emphasize cooperation between universities and the commercial sector
as a means to merge basic and applied research, promote economic development, and enhance
knowledge dissemination. The intersection between academia and industry on federal research
projects yields financial, administrative, and regulatory complexities related to cost accounting,
program income, audits, equipment, transparency, the distinction between subawards and sub-
contracts, and other items. This article discusses foundational compliance issues associated with
participation of for-profit firms in grants and cooperative agreements.
73
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
74
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
75
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
goods or services for the sponsored project. recipients and subrecipients will benefit
(This paper uses the word “contract” and from the distinctions drawn in this section.
“sub-contract” synonymously.)
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
This is in contrast to a “subaward”,
which is another term of art. A “subaward”
SUBAWARDEES AND CONTRACTORS
Research awards to academic
refers to an agreement between a prime
institutions almost always involve some
awardee and a third party through which
flow of funds to the commercial sector. A
the prime awardee transfers federal
simplistic and often-used question at the
financial assistance to the third party for
outset of a federally funded relationship
substantive scientific activity under the
between a prime awardee institution and a
sponsored project.
company is this: will the company’s
When an academic institution is the
relationship with the institution be one of
prime awardee under a grant or cooperative
true research collaboration, or one of
agreement, the characterization of a
vendor-customer? If the former, then
commercial firm as either a “contractor”, on
normally a subaward is issued to the firm. If
the one hand, or a “subawardee”, on the
the latter, then normally a sub-contract is
other, has a profound effect on compliance
issued. The reality is that relationships
obligations. The next section provides a
between institutions and commercial
more expansive explanation of the
entities are multifaceted arrangements that
distinction between contractors and
take any number of shapes and are difficult
subawardees.
to categorize neatly. Relevant sources of
Note that casting a company as either a
guidance follow, and even this guidance is
contractor or a subawardee is not intended
not conducive to mechanical application in
to imply that companies are always
each situation.
subordinate to the academic institution.
Office of Management and Budget
Commercial firms often are eligible to be
(“OMB”) Circular A-110 (codified at 2 C.F.R.
direct, prime recipients of competitively
Part 215) and the DHHS Grants Policy
awarded grants and cooperative
Statement recognize a general distinction
agreements, especially in Recovery Act
between a “subaward” and a “contract” (or
programs.3 Nevertheless, it is increasingly
sub-contract) under an award:
common for companies to be subawardees
A subaward is the transfer of
under federal research grants and
financial assistance for substantive
cooperative agreements. As explained
programmatic work under the
below, many of the compliance issues
federal award; it does not include
associated with commercial subawardees
the procurement of commercial
will be one and the same for commercial
goods and services from a vendor.4
prime awardees. Thus, both prime
76
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
77
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
78
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
79
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
80
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
81
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
the investment of time and effort in research consortium participant” (NIH Grants
and development. In contrast, almost all Policy Statement, p. IIB-248).
federal sponsors explicitly prohibit payment • “Payment of fees (profit) are
of “profit” or “fees” to commercial allowable only if specifically
recipients and subrecipients that participate permitted by a program solicitation
in a federal grant, except under specific and and only to the extent that it does
authorized conditions. not exceed the amount negotiated by
the Grants and Agreements Officer
“. . . almost all federal sponsors and specified in the award letter”
(National Science Foundation [NSF]
explicitly prohibit payment of
Proposal and Award Policies and
“profit” or “fees” to commercial
Procedures Guide, p. V-12).
recipients and subrecipients that • “Fee or profit or other increment
participate in a federal grant, above cost may not be paid on
except under specific and Department of Commerce financial
authorized conditions.” assistance awards [grants] unless
there is statutory authorization to do
For example: so. Requests for fee or profit by
• “HHS policy allows the payment of recipients of any type should be
fee on SBIR/STTR grants, but HHS referred to [Commerce] for review”
will not provide profit or fee to any (Department of Commerce Grants
other type of recipient under any Manual, chap. 9).
other grant program. A fee may not • “Grants and cooperative agreements
be paid by a recipient to a may not provide for the payment of
subrecipient/consortium participant, fee or profit to recipients or
including a for-profit organization. subrecipients, except for awards
However, a fee (profit) may be paid made pursuant to the Small Business
to a contractor [e.g. vendor] Innovation Research or Small
providing routine goods or services Business Technology Transfer
under a grant in accordance with Research programs” (Department of
normal commercial practice” (HHS Energy Financial Assistance Rules, 10
Grants Policy Statement, II-30). C.F.R. § 600.318).
• “Except for grants awarded under These policies may come as an
the SBIR/STTR programs, under an unwelcome surprise to companies with
NIH grant, no profit or fee will be little experience in federal research projects.
provided to a for-profit organization, Firms that build profit and fee into labor
whether as a grantee or as a charges or otherwise “load” their billing
82
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
rates may need to disconnect elements of distribution system must account for total
cost from their standard charge schedules. hours and charge direct and indirect labor
to the appropriate cost objectives”24 in order
to accurately identify labor costs charged to
Cost Accounting Principles and direct activities, indirect activities, and
Systems included in the base to which indirect costs
Institutions of higher education and are allocated (emphasis in original). Some
nonprofit organizations are quite familiar for-profit firms are surprised to learn that to
with the cost accounting principles of OMB serve as a direct awardee or subawardee
Circulars A-21 and A-122, respectively. In under a grant demands this type of
many cases, these institutions have accounting infrastructure.
accounting systems centered around, and Note that the FAR cost principles are
tailored to, tracking reasonable, allowable, not fully consistent with the OMB Circular
and allocable costs. These costs are cost principles that apply to educational
identified with unique accounting codes and non-profit institutions. For instance, the
and institutional policies define appropriate FAR cost principles permit for-profit
documentation for each cost. However, few awardees to incur “precontract costs” to the
commercial organizations have systems that extent such costs would be allowable if
are designed to track costs in this manner, incurred after the effective date of the
unless the company is a prior recipient of award.25 This is in contrast to the Circular
cost-reimbursement government contracts. A-21 cost principles, which indicate that
Commercial firms are subject to the Cost “Costs incurred prior to the effective date of
Principles for Commercial Organizations in the the sponsored agreement, whether or not
Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) at they would have been allowable thereunder
48 C.F.R. Part 31. It can be expensive and if incurred after such date, are unallowable
time-consuming for a firm to newly unless approved by the sponsoring
establish the accounting infrastructure agency.”26
needed to comply with the FAR cost Also, recovery of indirect costs under
principles and other financial requirements grants and cooperative agreements can be a
applicable to the receipt of federal funds. challenge for commercial firms. Indirect
Take, for example, the documentation of cost recovery usually is based on a
salary and wages charged to grants. The negotiated indirect cost rate. For-profits that
NIH makes clear that cost accounting for already receive government awards may
commercial firms means that these firms have a negotiated indirect cost rate with
must document salaries and wages charged specific agencies.27 Such rate agreements,
to grants “by maintaining a labor unlike nonprofit rate agreements, may
distribution system for all employees contain highly confidential commercial and
regardless of function. The labor proprietary information; often they will not
83
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
84
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
period, unless the award terms and requirement to mark, tag, and segregate the
conditions provide otherwise.30 Second, if equipment.34 Some agencies reserve title to
authorized by the sponsor agency, the costs equipment purchased by commercial
incidental to the generation of program organizations. NSF is one example: “[T]itle
income may be deducted from gross income to equipment purchased or fabricated with
to determine program income, provided NSF grant funds by a small business or
these costs have not been charged to the other commercial firm will vest in the
award.31 In other words, program income government. Such equipment will be
can be “net” income. Finally, although acquired and used in accordance with [NSF
program income includes royalties and Conditions for Acquisition and Use of
other income earned from a copyrighted Equipment] and [NSF Property
work, patents, trademarks, or inventions, Management Standards].”35 Commercial
typically such income is exempt from the organizations should not assume, therefore,
program income requirements, though it is that property acquired under a project will
subject to the other intellectual property be unencumbered by federal requirements.
terms of the award. Audits and Access to Records
Federally Funded Equipment Commercial firms involved in federal
Rules on ownership, management, and research sometimes are surprised to learn of
disposition of equipment purchased with the government’s sweeping audit rights.
grant assistance may be different for Any company, as a direct or indirect
nonprofit and for-profit organizations. The recipient of award funds, automatically
Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement agrees to the authority of the federal
Act of 1977 permits agencies to vest title to sponsor, the U.S. Inspector General, the U.S.
grant-funded equipment in nonprofit Comptroller General, and any of their
organizations without further obligation to authorized representatives, to have timely
the government.32 Such property is and unrestricted access to the company’s
considered “exempt property”—it is books, documents, papers, or other records
generally excused from the equipment pertinent to the award.36 The government’s
management and accountability rules set rights include access to the firm’s personnel
forth in Circular A-110.33 for discussion related to such records, and
However, a commercial organization these rights are not limited by the record
has much less flexibility when it acquires retention period, which generally is three
equipment under federal awards or years from the date of submission of the
subawards. Such equipment is “nonexempt final financial report under the award. For-
property” and, unless otherwise specified in profit firms that are unaccustomed to
the award, subject to a spectrum of federal business may be uncomfortable with
acquisition, use, management, and such broad audit and interview rights.
disposition requirements, which include a Academic institutions, on the other hand,
85
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
have long had policies and procedures that are subject to the same audit requirements
are consistent with the government’s rights. as for-profit organizations.41
If an academic institution wanted to Intellectual Property
appraise the financial or other risk of The multiple intellectual property
engagement with a specific subawardee, complexities in academic-industry
normally the institution could review the collaboration are worthy of coverage in
subawardee’s annual Circular A-133 audit their own articles. For example, ownership
report, which is publicly available.37 This of IP, protection of background IP, and
risk assessment is considered a component rights to research data are particular
of a prime awardee’s subrecipient challenges, as is the question of material
monitoring obligations. However, Circular transfer. Research institutions and
A-133 does not apply to for-profit commercial firms may be constrained,
organizations, and prime awardees must under federal law, from agreeing to terms
look elsewhere to conduct an assessment of that otherwise are customary in the broader
for-profit subawardees.38 marketplace. This section highlights a few
Audit requirements for commercial fundamental observations in regard to
firms vary between federal agencies. For federally funded inventions.
example, DHHS requires for-profit firms to Collaboration between academia and
have a non-federal audit if the firm, during industry arguably is written into the Bayh-
its fiscal year, expended a total of $500,000 Dole Act, which imposes an obligation on
or more under one or more DHHS awards, research institutions to commercialize
as a direct recipient and/or as a government funded inventions.42 Nonprofit
subrecipient. The firm either may have: (1) a inventors and their institutions fulfill this
financial-related audit, in accordance with “duty to commercialize” through license
Government Auditing Standards, relationships with industry.43
commonly known as the “Yellow Book”, or The Bayh-Dole Act, by its own terms,
(2) an audit that meets the requirements did not apply to for-profit firms that were
contained in Circular A-133.39 Even when not small businesses. However, in response
the firm does not meet the $500,000 to increasing commercial sector concerns
threshold for the mandatory audit, the about this lack of uniformity, a 1983
firm’s “records must be available for review Presidential Memorandum and a 1987
by appropriate officials of Federal Executive Order extended Bayh-Dole to all
agencies.”40 Academic institutions that work for-profit organizations, to the extent
with for-profit subawardees must flow permitted by law.44 As such, inventions by
down the appropriate audit terms and companies that are conceived or first
secure compliance with the same. Also note actually reduced to practice in the
that pursuant to HHS policy, foreign performance of experimental, development,
subawardees—whether for-profit or not— or research work under a grant or
86
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
cooperative agreement may be retained and • Seek approval from the sponsor
protected by the company, subject to certain agency prior to assignment of an
government rights and various inventor invention;
obligations.45 The company must track and • Share royalties collected on a subject
report inventions, and maintain a system to invention with the inventor;
ensure that the government obtains its • Use royalties or income earned to
rights (Henderson & Smith, 2002).46 support scientific research or
The government’s rights to inventions education; and
include a nonexclusive, nontransferable, • Attract small business licensees.49
irrevocable, paid-up worldwide license to Other obligations unmistakably apply to
practice or have practiced for or on behalf of for-profit firms. Among these is the
the United States the invention throughout preference for U.S. manufacture of
the world.47 This is commonly known as inventions. Unless a waiver is obtained
“government-purpose” rights. The sponsor from the sponsor agency, products that
agency also maintains “march-in” rights, embody the invention or that are produced
which allows the government to step into through use of the invention must be
the shoes of the patent-holder and grant manufactured substantially in the United
additional “compulsory” licenses to the States.50 This preference presents a
invention upon investigation and certain challenge to firms that have relationships
findings. Grounds for march-in include a and agreements with foreign manufacturers,
finding that such action is “necessary to often in countries where manufacturing is
alleviate health or safety needs which are inexpensive. The penalty for omission to
not reasonably satisfied” by the patent- comply with this requirement could be
holder, its assignees, or licensees.48 The steep—e.g., “march-in”—though it is
government has not exercised these rights unclear whether in this context a march-in
with any frequency, if at all, but the ever has occurred.
existence of the right must be understood On February 28, 2011, the United States
by commercial organizations that Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the
participate in grants and cooperative question of whether a university’s statutory
agreements. right under the Bayh Dole Act in inventions
It would not appear, under the under federally funded research can be
regulations that implement the Bayh-Dole terminated unilaterally by an individual
Act, 37 C.F.R. Part 401, that companies are inventor through the inventor’s separate
subject to all the same obligations familiar agreement with a third party company that
to nonprofit institutions, such as the purports to assign the inventor’s rights to
obligation to: that company. The outcome of the case,
known as Bd. of Trustees of Stanford
University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.,
87
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
may considerably affect how research price data, the release of which would cause
institutions and companies secure competitive injury—typically is protected
assignments from individuals who work on under Exemption #4. However, agency
federal projects.51 grant and cooperative agreement officials
Transparency and Open Government have been known to be less receptive to
The current presidential administration Exemption #4 and less likely than their
asserts a “commitment to creating an procurement counterparts to withhold
unprecedented level of openness in records from public disclosure. Commercial
Government.”52 In this regard, organizations would be wise to proactively
organizations that participate in federal and thoroughly identify, mark, document,
research have developed a heightened and support the confidential nature of
sensitivity to protection of confidential sensitive information that is used in federal
information that is generated, used, or research.
submitted in a federal project. Generally, Two relatively new laws also contribute
commercial firms have much more to lose to heightened disclosure requirements:
from the unanticipated disclosure of • The Federal Funding Accountability
proprietary and confidential business and Transparency Act of 2006
information. (“FFATA”) requires disclosure, on a
New policies related to the Freedom of single publicly accessible website, of
Information Act (“FOIA”)53 have caused all entities and organizations that
concerns among companies that participate receive federal funds and
in grants and cooperative agreements. The payments.55 Through this website,
Justice Department has directed agencies to the public—including a firm’s
adopt a heavy presumption in favor of competition—now have broad
information disclosure, even for insight into federal awards secured
information that technically falls within the by commercial firms, and insight
scope of a FOIA Exemption.54 Broadly, into the partnerships and
FOIA requires federal agencies to disclose collaborations that commercial firms
records requested in writing by any person. form with academic institutions.
Agencies may withhold information • The Recovery Act (ARRA)56 contains
pursuant to nine statutory FOIA several transparency and
exemptions. One exemption is for “trade accountability requirements. A firm
secrets and commercial or financial that participates in an ARRA project
information obtained from a person and should anticipate the public
privileged or confidential”, otherwise disclosure of project data, as well as
known as Exemption #4. Quintessentially firm-related information, including
sensitive information—such as an the names and compensation of the
organization’s technical methodology and firm’s top officers.57 Furthermore,
88
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
89
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
ENDNOTES
1. On May 21, 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued
proposed rules on the identification and management of financial conflicts of interest. The
proposed rules enhance the present financial conflict of interest management and reporting
requirements for Public Health Service (PHS) grant recipients. See 75 Fed. Reg. 28687. The final
rule is expected in 2011.
2. “Following the federal money” also could be deceptive. For many reasons, as described in
this article, a commercial entity might forego federal funding and still cooperate as an
uncompensated participant in a federal project.
3. Federal sponsors make a variety of grants available to commercial entities. For example, the
U.S. Department of Commerce’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) made
grant funds available to for-profit entities to support the deployment of broadband
infrastructure. See http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/. The Department of Energy makes grant funds
available to for-profit entities for education, outreach, and modernization of electricity delivery
systems, renewable and efficient energy research and development, and a variety of other
research programs. See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) makes grant funds available to for-profit companies for specialized drug
and device research. See
http://www.fda.gov/forindustry/developingproductsforrarediseasesconditions/default.htm.
4. See DHHS Grants Policy Statement (GPS) II-78 (2007); NIH Grants Policy Statement (GPS), p.
I-25 (2010).
5. See DHHS GPS App. B-4; NIH GPS, p. I-12.
6. The Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) is a broad association of federal agencies,
universities, and research organizations that work to streamline the administration of federally
sponsored research. Materials can be found at http://thefdp.org/.
7. OMB Circular A-133 includes this caution in the course of presenting characteristics
indicative of a subawardee versus a vendor. § __210(d).
8. See OMB Circular A-133 § __210(b).
9. Circular A-110 §__.40-48; 2 C.F.R. § 215.40-48.
10. Circular A-110 §__.40-48; 2 C.F.R. § 215.40-48.
11. Circular A-110 App. A; 2 C.F.R. § 215 App. A.
12. See Exhibit 3 in the HHS GPS and Exhibit 4 in the NIH GPS.
13. HHS GPS, p. II-9; NIH GPS, p. IIA-8.
14. HHS GPS, p. II-5; NIH GPS, p. IIA-8.
15. HHS GPS, p. II-6; NIH GPS, p. IIA-9.
16. 45 C.F.R. § 74.1.
90
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
91
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
38. NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Pg. IV-4.
39. OMB Circular A-110 § __.53(e). See also 45 C.F.R. § 74.26(d)(2).
40. See http://harvester.census.gov/sac/.
41. “Since this part [Circular A-133] does not apply to for-profit subrecipients, the pass-through
entity is responsible for establishing requirements, as necessary, to ensure compliance by for-
profit subrecipients. The contract with the for-profit subrecipient should describe applicable
compliance requirements and the for-profit subrecipient’s compliance responsibility. Methods
to ensure compliance for Federal awards made to for-profit subrecipients may include pre-
award audits, monitoring during the contract, and post-award audits” OMB Circular A-133 §
__210(e).
42. 45 C.F.R. § 74.26(d); HHS GPS Pg. II-90.
43. 45 C.F.R. § 74.26(d) (2).
44. Bayh-Dole University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of Dec. 12, 1980, Pub. L. No.
96-517, 94 Stat. 3015-3028 (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. §§ 200-211, 201-307 (1994)).
45. See Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Government
Patent Policy, Pub Papers 248 (Feb. 18, 1983) and Executive Order 12591.
46. With respect to work that is subject to copyright protection, normally a firm may freely
copyright works developed under a federal grant or cooperative agreement. The sponsor
agency receives an automatic, royalty-free right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the
work for Federal purposes, and to authorize others to do so. OMB Circular A-110 §__.36(a); 2
C.F.R. § 215.36(a).
47. 35 U.S.C. § 202(c)(4); 37 C.F.R. § 401.14.
48. 35 U.S.C. § 203(a); 37 C.F.R. § 401.14(j).
49. 37 C.F.R. § 401.14(k).
50. 37 C.F.R. § 401.14(i).
51. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems Inc., 583
F.3d 832 (Fed. Cir. 2009), cert. granted, 178 L. Ed. 2d 368 (2010).
52. White House Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,
Transparency and Open Government, Jan. 21, 2009, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/.
53. 5 U.S.C. § 552.
54. Office of the Attorney General, Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies, Freedom of Information Act, Mar. 19, 2009, available at http://www.justice.gov/ag/foia-
memo-march2009.pdf.
55. Pub. L. 109-282,120 Stat. 1186 (Sept. 26, 2006).
56. Pub. L. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 215 (Feb. 17, 2009).
57. See Section 1512 of the Recovery Act. Also, see Office of Management and Budget,
Memorandum For The Heads Of Departments And Agencies, Implementing Guidance for the
Reports on Use of Funds Pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
June 22, 2009, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-
21.pdf.
58. See endnote 57 for applicable references.
92
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring/Summer 2011
59. Many other papers and resources address academic-industry collaborations. For example,
see the Council on Governmental Relations brochure on University-Industry Relations,
available at www.cogr.edu/viewDoc.cfm?DocID=151558, and see the National Academies
Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR), available at
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/guirr/
LITERATURE CITED
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2010, July 18). New earmark limits make universities desired
partners, but some just say no.
Federal Demonstration Partnership. (2000). http://thefdp.org.
Henderson, J. A., & Smith, J. J. (2002). Academia, industry, and the Bayh-Dole Act: An implied
duty to commercialize. Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology.
Last available at http://www.cimit.org/news/regulatory/coi_part3.pdf.
93
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
MEDIA REVIEW
The Lab:
A Positive Solution to Research Misconduct
REVIEWED BY:
MIRIAM A. CAMPO
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Full-text Article PDF Online:
http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v18n1_Campo.pdf
A BSTRACT
Research Misconduct is a serious issue that has been around for quite some time, but recently it is at
the forefront of funding agency regulations and compliance due to the new requirements from the
National Science Foundation (NSF) on Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). To comply with
RCR, institutions of higher education have been developing and creating training programs that
address core areas such as ethical foundations, research misconduct, business ethics, financial
conflicts, data management, mentoring, human and animal subjects, publication practices, and peer
review. Many different programs and tools covering an array of these topics are now being
implemented. One of the most powerful training tools I have encountered is “The Lab: Avoiding
Research Misconduct”.
INTRODUCTION
Research misconduct is defined as the including a Research Integrity Officer (RIO).
“fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in Research integrity is not new by any means
proposing, performing, or reviewing and it is just as important as it has ever
research, or in reporting research results” been. However, since January 2010 when
(U.S. DHHS, n.d.). Research integrity has the National Science Foundation (NSF)
always been an important part of incorporated the requirement for
performing research. Every major Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
university has misconduct policies and into its Grant Policy Guide (GPG), which
procedures. Some universities have research mandates that all postdoctoral researchers
integrity offices with a wide array of staff, and graduate and undergraduate students
94
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
funded by NSF receive training in RCR, this chosen and the responses provided to the
most important topic has taken center stage. questions, will drive the direction the story
Every university, college, and organization takes, not just for the chosen character but
that receives NSF funding immediately for the other characters as well. The main
went to work to put RCR programs in place story revolves around a possible case of
and ensure that everyone is trained in order research misconduct; the fact that how the
to comply with sponsor requirements. A chosen character responds guides the story
large majority of universities invested in the in different directions is one of the reasons
Collaborative Institutional Training “The Lab” is a tremendous learning tool.
Initiative (CITI). “The CITI Program is a
subscription service providing research “ . . .the fact that how the chosen
ethics education to all members of the
character responds guides the
research community” (Collaborative
story in different directions is
Institutional Training Initiative, n.d.).
Others created home-grown programs and
one of the reasons “The Lab” is a
face-to-face courses and programs to satisfy tremendous learning tool.”
the requirement. Although these programs
provide information about research ethics, “The Lab” is thought-provoking and
“The Lab” has become the interactive provides an opportunity for decision-
program that has taken research ethics making. Playing just one of the roles in the
learning to another level. movie provides great learning, but in my
opinion, in order to take full advantage of
WHAT IS THE LAB? what “The Lab” has to offer, everyone
“The Lab: Avoiding Research should play each of the characters because
Misconduct” was created by the Office of each one provides different choices and
Research Integrity (ORI), U.S. Department perspectives on the situation. Each one will
of Health and Human Services (HHS), to allow you to guide the story in a different
serve as an educational tool in the area of direction, which will play out in the
research misconduct. “The Lab” is an outcome of the situation.
interactive movie that allows the viewer to ORI also created a Facilitator’s Guide to
step into one of four main characters and go along with the movie. The guide has an
play that role in a case of possible research introduction to “The Lab” and what is
misconduct. The four main characters in the included in the program: simulation that
movie are a Postdoctoral Researcher, a includes four playable characters; tutorials
Graduate Student, a Principal Investigator, for each character that describe a step-by-
and a Research Administrator who recently step way to make ethical decisions; and the
took the position of Research Integrity Facilitator’s Guide. The latter also covers
Officer. The video is full of questions and items such as learning methods and
situations that, depending on the character provides suggestions for using the
95
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
LITERATURE CITED
96
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
BOOK REVIEW
Techniques for Monitoring Federal Subawards, 3rd ed.
Thompson Publishing, 2010,
ISBN: 978-1-933807-94-2. $169.00. 216 pp.
REVIEWED BY:
CLAUDIA E. HAYWOOD
J. Craig Venter Institute
Full-text Article PDF Online:
http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v18n1_BookReview.pdf
ABSTRACT
In Techniques for Monitoring Federal Subawards, 3rd ed., research administrators and others working in
the field will find important information necessary to establish a subaward monitoring system and
to provide guidance to staff and subawardees about the federal requirements of the award. This
version from Thompson Publishing Group is an update to previous versions that incorporates more
recent federal mandates for monitoring of all subawards issued under federal grants. It serves as a
useful reference guide for the experienced research administrator or a novice to in the field,
providing substantive information on the regulatory requirements.
Recent federal legislation has made the legal mandates mean additional work for
job of managing federal research grants the seasoned research administrator or for
more complex than ever before. In 2009, neophytes to the profession. In Techniques
Congress enacted the American Recovery for Monitoring Federal Subawards, 3rd ed., the
and Reinvestment Act1 which provided research administrator is provided with a
grant funding for numerous programs with useful resource for developing a federal
the intent of boosting the U.S. economy. It subaward monitoring program that is
also mandated governmental transparency, compliant with the regulations.
establishing a process through which all Touted as both updated and expanded,
grant recipients make available to the public this edition is divided into two main parts.
information about how federal Recovery Information in Part A is critical to
Act funding is being spent. These additional understanding the basics of subaward
97
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
98
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
evaluations using consultants, and using used by auditors, this chapter articulates
important communication tools such as how auditors test the adequacy of a
email. Deciding which technique(s) to use subrecipient’s monitoring system, including
may be a source of contention for the what documentation can be provided to
research administrator. The text suggests a support monitoring activities. The need for
number of factors that can be used in documentation is critical; this text drives
selecting the appropriate technique or tool home this point for the research
as a part of a comprehensive submonitoring administrator, including the implications of
program. non-compliance. Use of a checklist as a part
The issue of communication cannot be of internal control assessment is encouraged
taken lightly and no text on submonitoring and key elements inherent in the
techniques would be complete without assessment are provided. Research
addressing the need for effective administrators with experience in auditing
communication between all parties, and internal controls will find this
including the pass-through entity and the information useful in establishing a
federal awarding agency. Chapter 5 submonitoring program.
reiterates many earlier stated points about Part B of this edition provides the
communication, including providing research administrator with an in-depth
information to the subrecipient as a part of discussion of a number of selected grant
the subagreement itself. However, the text management issues. Such issues include
drives home the point that there also must further delineation of elements of the
be communication beyond the subgrant agreement and practical advice to
subagreement, including informing the grantees about implementing a sound
subrecipient of any changes in subrecipient monitoring program. The text
programmatic regulations that may occur closes out with a sound discussion of cash
post-award. These post-award changes may management rules that grantees and
trigger questions from the subrecipient or subgrantees must follow in order to comply
modifications in the scope of work. with applicable regulations.
During the monitoring process, it is Overall, Techniques for Monitoring Federal
critical to communicate the results of Subawards, 3rd ed., is a useful mini-treatise
follow-up site visits or document reviews. on the critical issues involved in monitoring
Chapter 6 builds on this discussion about subawards. It provides timely information
communication in monitoring follow-up, about the federal requirements of ARRA
providing information to the reader that that impact the research administrator in
may be utilized in meeting the important the majority of academic and non-profit
goal of proper subrecipient monitoring. institutions. While much of the information
Particularly useful is the information about discussed is provided at hig -levels and in
reviewing the single audit report; a sample summary, suitable references are made to
monitoring follow-up letter is provided. additional resources available to the
This section concludes with an extensive research administrator to further
discussion of the auditor’s review of supplement his/her learning and
monitoring activities. Detailing the process development of a submonitoring program.
99
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
ENDNOTES
1. Pub. L. 111-5
2. Pub. L. 103-62
100
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
William F. “Bill” Ferreira, J.D., is an attorney with Hogan Lovells in Washington, DC. He
provides advice to recipients of government grants and contracts, including small and large
businesses, colleges, universities, and nonprofit organizations. A significant portion of his
practice involves representation of colleges, universities, and other organizations engaged in
research, development, and other sponsored activity, both in the U.S. and overseas. Bill has
worked with numerous organizations on matters involving audits, investigations, and disputes
with the federal government regarding costs and administration of contracts, grants, and
cooperative agreements. He regularly advises organizations on cost allowability and cost
accounting; compliance with federal procurement laws and OMB Circulars; flowdown
obligations; rights to intellectual property; federal information security requirements; and
agency-specific policies addressing the financial and administrative management of grants and
contracts. Bill also advises clients on the drafting and negotiation of a wide range of contractual
instruments, including subawards and subcontracts, teaming agreements, nondisclosure
agreements, and other unique contractual arrangements.
Claudia E. Haywood, M.B.A., J.D., has worked in research in several capacities, including as a
research administrator and in support of research activities for more than twenty years in both
academic and non-profit settings. She currently serves as Assistant General Counsel at the J.
Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, Maryland, handling various types of legal transactions for
sponsored research activities, in addition to research regulatory compliance and intellectual
property. She has a bachelor of science and master of business administration from Virginia
101
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, and a Juris Doctor from the University of
Maryland School of Law.
Tom Pilgreen, Ph.D., has a background in higher education leadership and student affairs. He
is Assistant Professor, College Student Personnel Administration (CSPA) Program, Department
of Leadership Studies, University of Central Arkansas (UCA). A practiced leader himself, Dr.
Pilgreen retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserves and also served as an Assistant
Vice President in the university setting. He has an interest in leadership research and teaches
leadership theory in the CSPA program at UCA.
Robert Porter, Ph. D., is Director of Research Development, University of Tennessee, where he
conducts grant-writing workshops for faculty and graduate students. Over the past ten years he
has presented papers and workshops on grant writing at national conferences and has
published prize-winning articles in the Journal of Research Administration and Research
Management Review. Dr. Porter has previously taught at Virginia Tech, Swarthmore College, and
Eastern Washington University. He holds graduate degrees in Speech Communications from
the University of Michigan.
Thomas J. Roberts, Ed.D., is the Associate Vice President for Research, Florida Gulf Coast
University, Fort Myers, Florida. He has been a professional research administrator for over 20
years and has worked at various types of institutions, including comprehensive, doctoral-
granting, medical school, and major research university environments. He authored the first
doctoral dissertation focusing specifically on the field of research administration. Dr. Roberts
earned his doctorate in educational leadership from the University of Central Florida.
Jennifer Shambrook, Ph.D., currently serves as director, Grants & Contracts Management
Office, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee. She began her career in
research administration in 1986 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. She is the
principal investigator for both the 2007 and 2010 Research Administrator Stress Perception
Surveys. Her research focus is on reducing stress, increasing stress resiliency, and promoting
good health behavior in the work environment.
102
Research Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1
Spring/Summer 2011
Jo Ann Smith, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Master of Research
Administration graduate program at the University of Central Florida. She earned a Ph.D. in
Instructional Systems Technology and is a Certified Research Administrator (CRA) with over 20
years' experience in sponsored programs. Her efforts in research and grant development with
universities, hospitals, federal, state, local, and nonprofit agencies have collectively resulted in
approximately $100 million in funding. She has been a state and federal proposal reviewer, a
program evaluator, and a presenter at local and national conferences. She has taught qualitative
and quantitative research methods and is currently teaching Strategic Planning and
Management.
103