enabling amazing science - ncura.edu
TRANSCRIPT
DECEMBER 2013
PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OFUNIVERSITY RESEARCH ADMINISTRATORS
VOLUME XLV, NO. 6
ALSO IN THIS ISSUEBecoming a PI Whisperer | Enabling Amazing Science
NCURA Education Scholarship Fund, Page 34
2013_Dec_Mag_23_A 12/2/13 12:25 PM Page i
facebook.com/ncura1959 twitter.com/#!NCURA youtube.com/ncura1959
International Research Administration By the Numbers......................102014 Financial Research Administration Conference..........................16Global Contributing Editors ..............................................................17In Memoriam ...................................................................................20BILAT USA 2.0: EU-US Research & Innovation Cooperation ...............202014 Pre-Award Research Administration Conference .......................24Outgoing Volunteer Leaders Recognition...........................................28NCURA Pathways .......................................................................30, 38NCURAbly Pedantic ..........................................................................39What’s on My Desk ....................................................................43, 48Audit Watch .....................................................................................47
Collaborate Conversations................................................................48Inaugural International Region Meeting ............................................51On Campus Profile ...........................................................................56Ask Ann Granters .............................................................................57Annual Meeting: Opportunities to Mentor and be Mentored..............61AM56 Planning Underway................................................................62Newly Appointed NCURA Peer Reviewers..........................................63Regional Corner ...............................................................................64Milestones .......................................................................................68Calendar of Events ..............................................................Back Cover
IN THIS ISSUE
Message from Your President By Patricia Hawk................................................................................3
Capitol View By Carol J. Blum................................................................................................................4
Institutional Evolution to Advance Engagement Across Borders By Michael M. Crow.............7
International Research: How Building Relationships Can Expand Opportunities for PUIs By Mark Roltsch and Steven M. Gerardi.....................................................8
Communicating Across Borders: Partnering for Success By Gai Doran..................................11
Research Across Borders: Export Controls for Departmental Research Administrators By Elizabeth Haney...............................................................................................13
The Science of Team Science: Understanding the Federal Government’s Influence on Research Collaboration By Andrew Steil and Linda Samson..................................................................21
New Collaborations are Possible and Priceless By Denise Clark, Sue O’Brien, Bryony Wakefield and Julie Ward..........................................................25
Becoming a PI Whisperer By Betsy Foushee ..................................................................................................29
Cool Research Project Spotlight: UW Surgical Robot Featured in 2013 Movie ‘Ender’s Game’ By Michelle Ma .........................................................................................................31
NCURA EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIP FUND..................................................................34
Developing an International ‘Responsible Conduct of Research Program’ for Clinical Researchers By Mary Ellen Sheridan, Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan, and Thalia Arawi .........................................36
A GUIRR Workshop: Culture, International Research Agreements, and Collaboration By James Casey ...............................................................................................................................40
Research Administration 101: A Top Ten List of Lessons Learned By Robyn Remotigue and Anthony Ventimiglia .................................................................................................................41
Smartphones: Why They are Not Called Secure Phones By Paul J. Millis............................................................44
Enabling Amazing Science: Using Lean in Post–Award Management at the University of Washington By Sue Camber, Kirsten DeFries and Lily Gebrenegus.......................................................49
Proposal Development and Project Management: Are You Ready for the Cloud Age? By Diane M. Meyer ......................................................................................53
What I Learnt about Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration on My Summer ‘Vacation’ By Simon Kerr ...................................................................................................................58
Changing of the Guard at ARMA UK By Andrew Chamberlain ..............................................................................60
CONTENTSFEATURES
PAGE 8
PAGE 21
PI
PAGE 29
PAGE 11
ERRATAIn the March/April issue,Averting the Big Bang(Volume XLV, 2, pgs 19-22),the authors inadvertentlyomitted that the proposalpreparation timeline wasoriginally derived from anexisting Purdue Universitydocument. The authorswould like to acknowledgeand thank Purdue University.
PAGE 31
PAGE 40
▼
2 NCURA Magazine
SENIOR EDITORDan Nordquist
Assistant Vice President, Office of Research, Director, Office of Grant and Research Development
Washington State University(509) [email protected]
CO-EDITORSKristine Kulage
Director, Office of Scholarship and Research Development
Columbia University School of Nursing(212) 305-5495 [email protected]
Deborah SmithAssociate Vice Chancellor for Research
University of Tennessee Health Science Center(901) 448-4823 [email protected]
Thomas WilsonAssistant Vice President/Senior Research Administrator
Rush University Medical Center (312) 942-3618 [email protected]
MANAGING EDITORKathleen Larmett
Executive Director, NCURA(202) [email protected]
PRODUCTION COORDINATORMarc Schiffman
Assistant Executive Director, NCURA(202) 466-3894 [email protected]
CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (N-MAG) COORDINATORDerek Brown
Subaward/Reporting CoordinatorWashington State University(509) [email protected]
COPY EDITORGeeta Dutta
Proposal ManagerWashington State University(509) 335-5980 [email protected]
CONTRIBUTING EDITORSBIOMEDICAL Andre WalkerThe University of Chicago(773) [email protected]
CAPITOL VIEWCarol BlumCouncil on Governmental Relations(202) 289-6655 [email protected]
COMPLIANCE Cynthia NicholsUniversity of Tennessee - Institute of Agriculture(865) [email protected]
DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCHADMINISTRATIONVicki KrellArizona State University(480) [email protected]
ELECTRONIC RESEARCHADMINISTRATION Mark SweetUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison (608) [email protected]
FINANCIAL RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION Timothy PattersonHuron Consulting Group(312) [email protected]
INTERNATIONAL John CarforaLoyola Marymount University (310) 338-6004 [email protected]
EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP NCURA Executive Leadership ProgramClass of 2012
PRE-AWARD Vincent “Bo” BogdanskiColorado State University (970) [email protected]
PREDOMINANTLY UNDERGRADUATEINSTITUTIONS Carolyn Elliott-FarinoKennesaw State University (770) 423-6381 [email protected]
The NCURA Magazine accepts advertisements for products and services pertinent touniversity research administration. In addition, display advertisements (including those forposition openings) will only be published. The minimum rate is $500.
Advertisements and articles should not be construed as official endorsements by NCURA. Foradditional information on advertising or changes in address, please contact:
National Council of University Research Administrators1015 18th Street, NW, Suite 901Washington, DC 20036 www.ncura.edu
To request permission to reprint material from the NCURA Magazine, please send yourinquiry to Kathleen Larmett at [email protected] and include the issue, name ofarticle and where you are looking to reprint it.
© 2013 National Council of University Research Administrators NCURA Magazine isprinted on recycled paper, using Agri-based inks.
VOLUME XLV, NO. 6ON THE COVER: Research Across Borders: Institutional andGeographic is a theme the Co-Editors and I came up with way back in No-vember of 2012, and it is more relevant than ever! We have borders allacross our profession – departmentally, institutionally, by counties, town-ships, states, as well as nations. I love the cover image because it shows uswithout hard lined boundaries but simply with connections points becausethat is what we as research administrators do, eliminate the walls and admin-istrative burden to provide a seamless service to our best and brightest. Infact, many of our own best and brightest NCURA members, in 2013, havebeen involved with the “Geographic” part by helping research administrationin China, Japan, Ghana, and taking part in meetings in Canada, England, Aus-
tria, and Australia. On the “Institutional”front we continue to implement our NCURAtagline — supporting research…together— by having programs that help us de-velop and build our professional network.
Even a government shutdown did not dis-courage authors from wanting to be in-volved with this theme. We haveinstitutions all over the world representedwith articles in this issue – Kyoto University,University of British Columbia, University ofSouthern Denmark, the Institute of Pho-
tonic Sciences in Barcelona, University of Melbourne as well as coast to coastin the U.S. from the University of Maryland, Baltimore to Oregon State Univer-sity. Now for a quick peek at some of the articles you will be seeing.
President Michael M. Crow from Arizona State University (ASU) tells us aboutwhat ASU is doing globally. As many of you know, Dr. Crow keeps us all onthe edge of our seat related to innovative ideas and leadership – it must be all
that wonderful sunshine down in Tempe. I introduceall of you to our new Global Contributing Editors covering Japan, Canada, and Europe, thanks to KeikoOkano, Martin Kirk, and Olaf Svenningsen. Past Presi-dent Denise Clark, along with her friends from thedown under (Bryony Wakefield, Sue O’Brien, and JulieWard), talk about their U.S./Aussie connection. MaryEllen Sheridan, Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan, Thalia Arawishare with us the heavy duty work related to “Develop-
ing an International Responsible Conduct of Research Program for ClinicalResearchers.” Simon Kerr, from Melbourne, tells us about his summer vaca-tion where he learned all about international research collaboration.
Ty M. Neffert from Livlonenprosser University once again cracks me up withvoyages of the Starship Continuing Resolution, now that is really across bor-ders. However, we have a bit of competition within this issue, becauseDanielle Anthony found a “Cool Research Projects Spotlight” story about themovie Ender’s Game that stars Harrison Ford from our beloved Star Warsand Indiana Jones films (and many others). We do COOL stuff with univer-sity research!
May the world feel like a smaller and friendlier place after reading thisissue, enjoy!
Dan Nordquist, Senior Editor
Dan is currently the Assistant Vice President, Office of Research, and Direc-tor of Washington State University’s Office of Grant and Research Develop-ment. He oversees research development, proposal and award processing,research metrics, non-financial post-award, and is significantly involvedin strategic initiatives at WSU. He has a passion for technology and its pos-itive impact on research management. Dan has significant leadership ex-perience internally and externally, and is currently NCURA’s Immediate PastPresident. He can be reached at [email protected]
2013_Dec_Mag_23_A 12/2/13 12:05 PM Page 2
3
The theme for this edition of the Magazine is Research Across Borders: Institutional and Geographic.As I thought about the work that NCURA has done over this past year, I want to tell you about our most recentBoard meeting, held in Philadelphia in early October. I think of this meeting as a historic meeting in a his-toric place (Philadelphia). I also think this meeting fit this issue’s theme — research administration/man-agement across borders, both institutional and geographic.
Since 1959, NCURA has been involved in professional development and training—it’s our hallmark and our“bread and butter.” As we’ve grown over the years, we’ve seen training and professional development grow at both the national and the regionallevel. We now have 3 national level conferences — the Annual Meeting, the Financial Research Administration Conference and the Pre-Award Re-search Administration Conference. We also have 4 national traveling workshops — Fundamentals, SPAII, FRA and DRA. It’s also a sign of ourgrowth to see regions expanding out to do more than just a regional-level annual meeting. So it was a perfect time for the Board of Directors tolook at our administrative policies and make sure there were clear “roles and responsibilities” and “who does what” for supporting regionaltraining and professional development activities. It was important to set up the national and regional organizations for future programming success,and I’m proud to say the Board came up with some great additions to our administrative policies.
It will now be clear that regions receive the following support for one annual regional meeting from the national organization at no cost: up to$500 for speaker support; review of all hotel and vendor contracts; access to on-line meeting registration; and assistance/guidance on eventplanning. For regions that offer training or professional development outside of their annual regional meeting, the national organization will alsosupport those events, but regions will be assessed a modest fee to help offset the additional staff effort.
Another important addition to our administrative policies is a statement of the regions’ responsibilities to the national organization for these pro-fessional development/training activities outside of an annual regional meeting. For example, regions will be responsible for following our EquitableParticipation policy, providing an evaluation plan and methodology for faculty recruitment and faculty selection. I’m truly happy that the Board hasput a structure in place for regions to develop their own professional development and training activities. I’m also truly happy if regions justcontinue with their regional annual meetings. It’s always nice to have choices!
Now, on to NCURA‘s research administration/management across geographic borders. As President, I was very fortunate to attend meetings ofsome of our sister societies. It was an experience I will always remember. It’s true that attendance at these meetings took me to some nice places— Canada, England, Austria and Australia. But the colleagues and friends made and the knowledge gained and exchanged are priceless. I wroteabout some of my experiences earlier this year, but attending these events only confirmed and cemented my belief that research administration isglobal and I believe the global strategic plan approved by the Board at our October meeting gives us the framework to continue the great work wedo domestically and globally.
Attending all of these global meetings made me think about all of NCURA’s global activities. We’ve got Global Fundamentals, we’ve got a global fellowship program that will be expanded to more of our global sister organizations, we’ve got our international region established, and they willhold their first regional meeting in April 2014. And of course, we’re co-hosting the INORMS Congress in April 2014! It’s been a real joy to be ableto serve as President this year, and it’s an honor to lead the Board through what I consider to be an important year.
Leading the Board and leading NCURA this year has been an amazing experience for me both personally and professionally. There are a lot ofpeople I have to thank for allowing me to enjoy this amazing experience.
I wouldn’t have been able to have this amazing experience without the help and support of a lot of people, and I would like to acknowledge thatsupport. First, I have to thank my Vice President for Research, Rick Spinrad and my Associate Vice President for Research, Rich Holdren. Bothhave given my tremendous support throughout the years, and their support demonstrates the value NCURA and participation in NCURA brings to
Message from Your PresidentBy Patricia Hawk, NCURA President
DECEMBER 2013
President’s Message continued on page 63
2013_Dec_Mag_23_A 12/2/13 12:05 PM Page 3
4 NCURA Magazine
“Lapse in Funding,” “Funding Gap,” “Calvinball,” or “Slimdown.” Whateveryou want to call it, the result – the “partial” shutdown of the Federal gov-ernment – is over for now. Predictions for January 15, 2014 (and February7, 2014), as I write this in October? Above my pay grade. Although mostpundits and members of the nattering classes seem to agree that the Octobershutdown did not achieve its architects’ goals. And, in the absence of newappropriation bills for the various departments, Federal agencies remain ona Continuing Appropriation Resolution, 2014, until January which, as youknow, carries forward almost all spending levels at the prior year (2013)sequester-adjusted levels. The immediate consequence of the passage of theContinuing Resolution (CR) was the resumption of activities in the agenciesand a scramble by many, notably for our purposes, the National Institutes ofHealth (NIH) and National Science Foundation, to catch up in the processesof reviewing applications and awarding of funds available under the CR.
In the midst of the resumption of operations, NIH issued a new Grants PolicyStatement (GPS) that was effective immediately (October 13, 2013) (NIH,2013). In a Summary of Significant Changes, NIH points to the sectionsthat have been changed in this new version of the GPS. As in the past withannual revisions, NIH has incorporated new and modified requirements im-plemented since the last update. The requirement for graduate and under-graduate students with a measurable role on a project to have an eRACommons ID is included in the new GPS. As cautioned in the NIH GuideNotice NOT-OD-13-097 (NIH NOT, 2013), beginning on October 18, 2013,a warning will be generated when a Research Performance Progress Report(RPPR) is submitted that lists individuals in a graduate or undergraduatestudent role who have not established an eRA Commons ID. Then, beginningin October 2014, RPPRs lacking the eRA Commons ID for graduate and un-dergraduate students will receive an error, and the RPPR will not be acceptedby the NIH. There is a new award term for grants funded under the Presi-dent’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Program concerning pros-titution and sex trafficking, which limits the use of funds. This provision issimilar to those implemented by USAID and other agencies distributing fundsunder (PEPFAR).
You will recall NIH’s notice issued on July 23, 2013, that encouraged insti-tutions to assist graduate students and postdoctoral researchers to achievetheir career goals through the use of Individual Development Plans (IDPs)and report on this in all progress reports submitted on/after October 1,2014, using the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR). The newGPS embeds this “expectation” as a reportable element in the RPPR. Thistransition of “expectation” to veiled “policy” is surprising and worth noting[See GPS Sections 8.4.1.1.2 and 11.3.13.4].
In a similar almost-annual event, the National Science Foundation (NSF) an-nounced in May, 2013, a proposed revision to its Proposal and Award Poli-cies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). NSF usually finalizes proposedrevisions in October with an effective date in January of the following year.This past October was a little odd. As NSF labored to catch up, NSF staff an-nounced at the October Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) meetingthat NSF planned to issue the revised PAPPG in November with an effectivedate in February, 2014. The May draft included a number of modifications,
most aligning the PAPPG with new policies and procedures announcedthroughout the year. Some changes are either helpful or of limited conse-quence. NSF provided useful information and guidance concerning the al-lowability of visa costs and introduced a new process and procedures withregard to environmental impacts that include a checklist that will be usedonly if additional information is needed and requested by NSF. Some changesare not unexpected but, nonetheless, frustrating— including the exclusionof participant costs from the Facilities & Administrative (F&A) calculation.
Unfortunately, NSF continues to propose modifications to its financial con-flicts of interest (COI) policy through the PAPPG. In the last (2012) revision,NSF made a change to the requirements concerning an unmanageable con-flict of interest, describing the review by the NSF Office of General Counsel(OGC) of institutional policies to determine the institution’s procedures foraddressing unmanageable conflicts. NSF’s policy does not require proce-dures for addressing unmanageable conflicts, per se, beyond notifying NSF.The proposed PAPPG adds an additional requirement to provide notificationto the NSF OGC “if the institution finds that research will proceed withoutthe imposition of conditions or restriction when a COI exists.” Under thecurrent policy, a determination by the institution to allow a project to pro-ceed without restrictions or conditions is a managed conflict of interest andnot reportable to NSF. It will be interesting to see if this language is in thefinal PAPPG.
In an ironic twist (or not), Congress turned its attention to transparency andaccountability as the Federal government resumed operations in October.Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) reintroduced a slightly modified version of theGrant Reform and New Transparency (GRANT) Act (H.R. 3316) that aims atensuring accountability in the federal grants process by increasing its trans-parency to the public. While the new version of the GRANT Act includes somemodifications to the version introduced in November, 2011 (described inthe NCURA Magazine XLIV, No. 1 January/February 2012), the bill retainedthe requirement to post all funded grant applications, grant performanceinformation, and executed grant agreements to a publicly accessible website.The bill includes a provision for each Department to make exceptions toprotect intellectual property and sensitive information but the default pro-cedure – which was not defined – is that the application, performance in-formation, and executed agreement for all awarded grants must be postedonline. The research community feared that the provisions, particularly asrelated to the application, could lead to a number of problems, includingrelease of unprotected intellectual property, the misuse of information re-lated to dual-use research of concern (DURC), and the release of sensitiveinformation about researchers and facilities involving research with animals.
Despite changes aimed at preserving the anonymity of peer reviewers, therevamped bill still requires the institutional affiliation or employer of peerreviewers to be posted which could lead to the identification of reviewers infields with a small cohort of experts. The research community argued thatreal anonymity in the peer review process permits greater candor in theevaluation of grant applications and thereby contributes to a higher qualityof review than would otherwise occur and urged the bill’s sponsors to con-sider the assignment of a unique identifier for agency use. As with many ef-
5
forts at transparency and accountability, one wonders if unfiltered access tobroad categories of information provided out of context improves the pub-lic’s understanding.
The fate of the revised GRANT Act will likely have been resolved by the timeyou read this. If passed in the House as proposed, the research communitywill be working with members of the Senate to attempt to modify provisionsthat are viewed as increasing the administrative burden on the investigatorsand their home institutions.
Legislatively, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation CommitteeChairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) announced on October 31, 2013, thathearings will begin in November, 2013, to start the process for the reautho-rization of the America COMPETES Act. Currently, the House Science, Space,and Technology Committee is working a dual track on the reauthorizationof COMPETES. The Committee Democrats have released their version of aCOMPETES Reauthorization bill while the Committee Republicans have de-cided to consider COMPETES reauthorization in a series of smaller, targetedbills. Two of these bills are the EINSTEIN (Enabling Innovation for Science,Technology and Energy in America) Act which encompasses the Departmentof Energy (DOE) Office of Science parts of COMPETES; and the FIRST (Fron-tier in Innovative Research, Science, and Technology) Act which includesreauthorization for the NSF, the National Institute of Standards and Technol-ogy (NIST), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and STEM(science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education componentsof COMPETES.
The House Science Subcommittee on Energy began its hearings on EIN-STEIN on October 31, 2013, and the House Science Subcommittee on Re-search and Technology is planning a hearing on the FIRST bill in November,2013. Since its passage in 2007 and through reauthorization in 2010, theAmerica COMPETES Act of 2007 has cumulatively added the NSF provisionsfor mentoring post-doctoral fellows, providing education in the responsibleconduct of research for undergraduate and graduate students and fellows,and public access to “final” reports. The 2010 reauthorization addressed
the expansion and consolidation of the STEM program initiatives across theFederal government. The research community has appreciated the focuson “promot[ing] excellence in technology, education, and science” [thePETES in COMPETES] but remains cautious about regulatory changes em-bedded in the legislation. With these strikingly dissimilar approaches toreauthorization, it will likely be a little while until the COMPETES Act isreauthorized by Congress.
Of course the really big news in the new year will likely be the issuance ofthe final Reform of Federal Policies Relating to Grants and CooperativeAgreements; Cost Principles and Administrative Requirements (Includ-ing Single Audit Act) proposed by the Office of Management and Budget(OMB) in February, 2013. We know that OMB and the interagency Councilon Financial Assistance Reform (COFAR) had hoped to issue the final com-bined circular by the end of 2013. With the intervening government shut-down, the issuance date is likely delayed until at least January, 2014. Theproposed revisions were very briefly summarized in the NCURA Magazine inMarch, 2013 (Volume XLV, No. 2, March/April, 2013) and volumes havebeen written since as organizations and institutions responded to the requestfor comments by the June, 2013, deadline.
What will happen? I leave it to fate to determine the outcomes, noting onlythat Bertrand Russell once observed, “it seems to be the fate of idealists toobtain what they have struggled for in a form which destroys their ideals.”Maybe I’ll stick with Albert Camus: “There is no fate that cannot be sur-mounted by scorn.” N
DECEMBER 2013
Carol J. Blum is Director for Research Compliance and Administration at the Councilon Governmental Relations (COGR). Before joining COGR in 2001, Carol served OhioUniversity for ten years as associate vice president for research after three years at theOhio Board of Regents as director of graduate and special programs. She holds a PhDin history from the University of Cincinnati. She has recently begun exercising theright side of her brain in art classes and continues to volunteer at the Washington Lit-eracy Council and Washington Area (Reproductive Health) Clinic Defense Task Force.Carol can be reached at [email protected]
ReferencesAmerica COMPETES Act. H.R. 2272. 110th Cong. (2007-2009).
National Science Foundation (NSF). (May, 2013). Federal Register May 30, 2013,pp 32474-32475 (78FR32474).
National Science Foundation (NSF) Update. (2013). Council on Governmental Relations. Washington, DC. October, 2013.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. (2013). NIH Grants Policy Statement (10/13). Retrieved fromhttp://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2013/index.htm
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. (2013). NOT-OD-13-093. NIH Encourages Institutions to Develop Individual Development Plansfor Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Researchers. (July 23, 2013). Retrieved from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-13-093.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. (2013). NOT-OD-13-097. Extension of eRA Commons User IDs to Individuals in Graduateand undergraduate Student Project roles with Measurable Effort on an NIH Annual Progress Report (PHS2590 & RPPR). (August 2, 2013). Retrieved fromhttp://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-13-097.html
Voter Access Protection Act of 2011. H.R. 3316. 112th Cong. (2011-2012). Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3316:
White House Office of Management and Budget. (2013). Reform of Federal Policies Relating to Grants and Cooperative Agreements; Cost Principles and AdministrativeRequirements (Including single Audit Act). (February 1, 2013). Retreived fromhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/01/2013-02113/reform-of-federal-policies-relating-to-grants-and-cooperative-agreements-cost-principles-and
International Network of ResearchManagement Societies Congress
Is your institution expanding its global research presence or experiencing an
escalation in foreign sponsorship or subcontracting? Are you curious about
international funding opportunities such as the European Union's Horizon
2020? As you contemplate your future training opportunities to educate
yourself as to how best to manage a growing globally sponsored portfolio,
please consider participating in the fifth International Network of Research
Management Societies (INORMS) Congress scheduled for April 10-13, 2014.
The theme of the Congress is Enabling the Global Research Enterprise from Policy to Practice and consists of three functional tracks: Policy, Practice, and
Performance. Between the three tracks, the conference will offer 70
concurrent sessions with plenty of networking opportunities. The conference
website is open for registration and we encourage you to register prior to
February 21, 2014 to take advantage of the early registration discount and to
secure lodging at the conference hotel, the Washington Hilton.
This is the first time that this global conference has been held in North America
and NCURA is pleased to be co-hosting the conference along with the Canadian
Association of University Research
Administrators (CAURA) and the
Society of Research Administrators
Inter national (SRAI). So grab your
business cards and polish up on your
cultural exchanges and join us in
Washington, D.C. for INORMS 2014!
Program Co-Chairs (l-r): Martin Kirk, Univ of British Columbia (CAURA); Bill Schweri, Univ of Kentucky (SRAI); Dave Richardson, Univ of Illinois (NCURA)
www.inorms2014.org
April 10-13
7
Most of the challenges that confront society—sus-tainability, renewable energy, public health, na-tional security, access to education—are globalin scope and best advanced in a context of globalengagement. Research universities are transfor-mational knowledge enterprises with the potentialto create solutions with worldwide relevance. Thepotential to exert global impact, however, comeswith challenges that often demand creative ap-proaches to international engagement.
At Arizona State University, the alignment of abroad range of strategic research with critical na-tional goals has been an overarching objective ofour research enterprise. In order to accomplishour goals, we pursue a course of deliberateplanned evolution. Once we determine an objec-tive, we reengineer our organizational geneticcode accordingly. This could mean recombiningacademic departments or establishing new trans-disciplinary units. We generally disregard existingprototypes and approach each new initiative as aunique design problem.
The funding agencies that universities typically en-gage with—NSF, or NIH, for example—have in-ternational divisions, but they don’t match thescale of their domestic programs. This makestruly international research difficult unless weseek alternate funding sources.
To address this challenge, we created ASU Global,a unit within our Office of Knowledge EnterpriseDevelopment (OKED) that is distinct from studyabroad and international scholars programs. TheASU Global team works to cultivate relationshipswith funding agencies like USAID, the Departmentof State, and the World Bank, as well as with po-tential international research partners. The Globalteam builds relationships, finds opportunities, andthen reaches out to faculty whose talents matchthose opportunities.
Working with international development agen-cies presents its own set of challenges. For in-stance, these organizations are accustomed toworking with private contractors and non-gov-ernmental organizations. The private sectortends to be wary of engagement with universitiesbecause they assume we are not outcome-fo-
cused. At ASU we emphasize use-inspired re-search that contributes to the well-being of ourcommunity, nation, and world alike—particu-larly the developing world. Partner organizationsare often surprised by this approach and howsuccessfully we put it into practice.
The turnaround time for international agency ap-plications is incredibly compressed compared tothe agencies universities typically approach. In-vestigators don’t have a long lead-time to put to-gether a proposal—typically about three weeksfrom when the call goes out to the applicationdue date. Our research administration teammakes continual process improvements thatstreamline both the application process andmanagement of grants once they are received.Our approach is customer-focused, with the goalof helping faculty meet application and compli-ance requirements with minimal burden so theycan focus on their research.
For example, every researcher at ASU has a re-search advancement staff member available tosupport them in the proposal developmentprocess. Units with a high volume of proposalshave a staff member embedded within the unit. Ateam housed within OKED manages less research-intensive units as well as the large strategic initia-tives. Research advancement staff can usually
respond to faculty regarding opportunities thesame day. Our goal is to provide our researchersthe help they need as quickly as possible and givethem a competitive advantage in their quest forexternal funding.
Conducting research in and with foreign countriesalso brings up unique compliance, human re-sources, and legal issues. We have established aglobal operations process that aligns with proposaldevelopment and project execution to assess andcomply with local laws and employment practices.
We have also streamlined our proposal andawards management processes and are imple-menting an enterprise research administrationsystem that replaces a set of separate, manual sys-tems. It includes compliance functions, auto-mated proposal development, and an awardmodule. The system saves time and providesgreater integration, accuracy, and security.
Crossing national, institutional, and disciplinaryboundaries presents new and unique challenges.This requires all research administration staff,both central office and in the departments, to becreative problem-solvers. It is crucial to rou-tinely ask our administrators, researchers, andthe entire academic community, “What do wewant to accomplish?” and “What do we have todo to get there?” N
InstitutionalEvolution to
AdvanceEngagement
AcrossBordersBy Michael M. Crow
DECEMBER 2013
Michael M. Crow became the six-teenth president of Arizona State Univer-sity in 2002. He is guiding thetransformation of ASU into one of the na-tion’s leading public metropolitan re-search universities, an institutioncombining academic excellence, in clu -
siveness, and societal impact—a model he terms the “NewAmerican University.” During his tenure ASU has estab-lished major transdisciplinary research initiatives andwitnessed an unprecedented academic infrastructure ex-pansion, tripling of research expenditures, and attain-ment of record levels of diversity. He was previouslyprofessor of science and technology policy and executivevice provost of Columbia University. A fellow of the Amer-ican Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)and National Academy of Public Administration, he is theauthor of books and articles analyzing knowledge enter-prises and science and technology policy.
8 NCURA Magazine
Building ConnectionsConducting international research requires col-laboration with international partners. For some-one at a PUI who is considering the possibilitiesof conducting international research, this require-ment may seem like an insurmountable barrier.To overcome this challenge, researchers mustseek out and build connections with potential in-ternational collaborators. For example, when thefirst author worked at the National Heart Lung andBlood Institute (NHLBI)/ NIH, he was involvedwith the review and training development of a
global network of ten Collaborating Centers of Ex-cellence (CCE; NHLBI, 2013). Each CCE pairedan academic institution in a developed countrywith a partnering institution in the USA. The CCE’swere tasked to develop infrastructures for re-search and training to enhance their capacity toconduct population-based or clinical research tomonitor, prevent, or control chronic diseases.Each year the primary investigators and traineesfrom the CCE’s met to discuss the accomplish-ments of the centers and to collaborate on re-search. Through these meetings, the first author
developed friendships with a number of investi-gators, post-doctoral fellows, PhD students, andstudent mentors. Connections such as these arefertile ground for nurturing future internationalresearch projects. The importance of the role ofrelationship building cannot be overstressed. Ina study of intimate partner violence in Canada andEthiopia, Bender et al (2011) found “that the bestinternational collaborations may be those that areunderstood within system realities but are ap-proached first as social relations between peoplewho respect and trust one another” (p.73).
International Research:
How Building Relationships Can Expand Opportunities for PUIsBy Mark Roltsch and Steven M. Gerardi
The perceived need for international research is on the rise, especially in biological and health sciences (Ramirez, 2007; Lombe, Newransky, Crea, & Stout,2013). In support of this perceived need, funding is available for international research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), through the Fogarty Inter-national Center (n.d.) and various NIH Institutes, provide opportunities to apply for research and training funds for both U.S. and foreign researchers in thedeveloping world. Today, NIH’s Fogarty International Center “funds some 400 research and training projects involving more than 100 U.S. universities.”Last year NIH funded $198,587,000 in grants to foreign countries (NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools, 2013). The National Science Foundation(NSF, n.d.) also has several programs to support collaboration between US and foreign institutions. The Office of International and Integrative Activities(IIA) at the NSF currently has 597 active grants. A review of that list revealed one from a PUI, a grant to CUNY Medgar Evers College for $13,958 entitledDeveloping new research collaboration with the University of Malaya. At present, despite the fact that funds are available for international research, fewof the studies currently being funded are being done in collaboration with researchers from PUI’s. However, it does not have to stay that way. Researchersat PUI’s can take practical steps to increase their chances of getting a piece of the international research funding pie. This article offers some useful tipsfor researchers and research administrators in building relationships with potential international research collaborators in order to identify and to expandupon opportunities for PUI’s to engage in international research.
9
So how does someone at a PUI develop such re-lationships? Thinking back to one’s undergradu-ate years, a person may recall having a desire toestablish new relationships of the romantic vari-ety. He or she may also recall that the odds ofbeing successful in this endeavor were greatly en-hanced by getting out of the dorm room and goingplaces where they were apt to meet people withsimilar interests. While some time has passed,and motives have changed since the undergradu-ate years, the ways to establish new relationshipsare much the same. In order to develop relation-ships with potential international collaborators,faculty have to go out and meet international re-searchers with similar interests! One great wayto connect with potential collaborators is to meetat conferences in the faculty member’s field.
Connecting AtConferencesConferences are an obvious place to make con-nections with people with similar research inter-ests. The best place to make connections atconferences is at poster sessions. An aspiring col-laborative investigator can review the poster ab-stracts in advance to ascertain potentialinternational research posters of interest. Posterpresenters are typically eager to discuss their re-search, especially with an informed researcherwith similar interests. Even if the poster presenteris a student, it is likely that their research adviseris close by. Additionally, one is likely to meet otherscholars with similar interests who are also visitingthe same poster presentation. Many researchershave made productive connections this way.
As in any relationship, potential research collab-
orators begin feeling each other out for their suit-ability to carry on a sustained relationship. Justlike in dating, if the two don’t “hit it off,” the re-lationship is likely to go no farther than the firstmeeting. However, if there is a spark of interest,potential collaborators may decide to take theirrelationship to the next level. This may includean invitation to speak or work together on a smallproject. For example, after meeting someone ata poster session, the first author was invited tospeak at the presenter’s school in Thailand. Afterdeveloping a sense of mutual respect and trust,the relationship that started at the poster presen-tation has continued to evolve to the point wherethey are presently collaborating on a proposal fora small international grant from their professionalassociation. It is worth noting that these small be-ginnings are important for larger scale collabo-rations in the future. For example, someprofessional associations offer internationalgrants specifically to nurture these types of rela-tionships. When reviewing NIH proposals, review-ers often ask: How much work have the PI’s donetogether and what have they published together?Given this, working together on a writing projectis a good first step for potential research collab-orators to establish a working relationship in theeyes of a grant reviewer.
Connecting WithInternational AlumniA second way to make connections with potentialinternational collaborators is by cultivating rela-tionships with former international students or in-ternational alumni from the PUI who have goneon to earn PhD’s or MD’s and returned to their
home countries. Institutions’ alumni associationswill be helpful in making such connections. For-mer students are a great source of potential col-laborators because researchers already have anestablished relationship and work history togetherand may have already collaborated on poster pre-sentations or publications. Other former under-graduate students and alumni may not have goneon to graduate school but may now be in leader-ship positions in foreign governments or corpo-rations that may be interested in collaborating onresearch projects. USAID supports the develop-ment of these types of collaborations.
Connecting ThroughAcademic SocialNetworksA third way to make connections with potentialinternational collaborators is to use one of the so-cial networks developed specifically for academ-ics and researchers: Academia.edu andResearchGate.net. These social network sites weredeveloped expressly for scientists and re-searchers. These sites afford researchers the op-portunity to share papers and data sets, and to askquestions or have online conversations about top-ics of interest. Both sites were launched in 2008and already have several million users. In a re-cent online article on the collaborative power ofResearchGate, Leena Rao (2013) highlights theexample of how Orazio Romeo, a researcher inItaly, and Emmanual Nnandi, a PhD student inNigeria, met through ResearchGate and collabo-rated to discover a deadly plant yeast that hadkilled an infant in Nandi’s hometown. In anotherexample, Rao points out how “Sohail Malik (Po-
DECEMBER 2013
ReferencesBender, A., Guruge, S., Aga, F., Hailemariam, D., Hyman, I., & Tamiru, M. (2011). International research collaboration as social relation: An Ethiopian-Canadian example.
Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 43(2), 62-75.Fogarty International Center (n.d.) Our role in global health. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from http://www.fic.nih.gov/About/Pages/role-global-health.aspxLombe, M., Newransky, C., Crea, T., & Stout, A. (2013). From rhetoric to reality: Planning and conducting collaborations for international research in the global south. Social
Work, 18(1), p. 31-40. doi:10.1093/sw/sws056National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. (2013, February 19) UnitedHealth and NHLBI collaborating center of excellence. Retrieved October
13, 2013, from http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/about/globalhealth/centers/index.htmNational Science Foundation (n.d.) Retrieved October 30, 2013, from
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/advancedSearchResult?ProgOrganization=01060000&BooleanElement=ALL&BooleanRef=ALL&ActiveAwards=true&#resultsNIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (2013, February 28) NIH Awards by Location & Organization. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from
http://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm?ot=&fy=2013&state=Foreign&ic=&fm=&orgid=&distr=&rfa=&om=n&pid=&view=statedetail Ramirez, J.A. (2007) Fostering international multicenter collaborative research: The CAPO project [Research Methods]. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung
Disease, 11(10), p. 1062-1065.Rao, L. (2013, September 30). The collaborative power of Berlin-based ResearchGate. TechCrunch.com. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from
http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/30/the-collaborative-power-of-berlin-based-researchgate
The American College of Sports Medicine. (n.d.). Finding continuing education: Awards and grants. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from http://www.acsm.org/find-continuing-education/awards-grants/research-grants/2011/08/16/oded-bar-or-international-scholar-award
NUMBERS
(International) Research Administration...By the
$716,301,000… the amount of United States
higher education R&D expenditures from foreign sources
in 2011, as identified in the latest
NSF HERD Report. This is up from $649,293,000in 2010, a rise of 10.3%.
844,400, the number of researchers in Japan
in 2012, up 0.2% from 2011.
124,700 of those researchers are female.
R&D performed in East/Southeast Asia and South Asia
represented only 24% of the global R&D total in 1999,
but accounted for 32% in 2009,
including China (12%) and Japan (11%).
$30,043,000,000… the amount of gross domestic
spending (Canadian Dollar) on research
and development in Canada in 2012, the latest available
data from the Canadian GERD Report.
In 2010, R&D intensity (R&D expenditure as a percentage
of GDP) in the EU-27 stood at 2.0%. Among the
EU Member States, only Finland (3.87%), Sweden
(3.42%) and
Denmark (3.06%) exceeded the
EU goal of devoting 3% of GDP to R&D.
Sources:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvyherd/
http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/kagaku/1539.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c4/c4s8.htm
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/88-221-x/2012001/t054-eng.htm
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-GN-12-001/EN/KS-GN-12-001-EN.PDF
Want to share numbers? Email Heather Kubinec [email protected]
10 NCURA Magazine
litical Science and Engineering, Pakistan) was looking for help in sta-tistics, when he found Michael Sandholzer (Radiologist, UK) on Re-searchGate. Together, they worked on Malik’s project to identify riskfactors generating terrorism and insurgency in Pakistan. Their articlehas been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal and will appear in 2014.”
Finding Funding for International ResearchNSF offers several funding opportunities to foster international rela-tionships and collaboration on its website http://www.nsf.gov/fundingOne such program is called Catalyzing New International Collaborations(CNIC). This program offers funds for brief international visits or work-shops which are expected to lead to research proposals submitted toNSF. Other NSF funding opportunities include the International Collab-oration in Chemistry between US Investigators and their CounterpartsAbroad (ICC) and the International Research Experiences for Students(IRES) program. Additionally, the NIH Fogarty International Centerwebsite www.fic.nih.gov is a great place to direct faculty to look forother funding opportunities. The site lists NIH international opportu-nities and also lists non-NIH international prospects. Some other placesfor faculty to look for funding opportunities are the Earthwatch Institutewww.earthwatch.org which supports scholarly research worldwide inthe biological, physical, social, and cultural sciences through a varietyof grants; and the American College of Sports Medicine’s Oded Bar-OrInternational Scholar Award. This award allows professionals to gaintechnical expertise and/or scientific knowledge through an interna-tional exchange program.
SummaryHopefully, this brief discussion will encourage you to consider the po-tential opportunities in international research. If international researchaligns with your institution’s business plan, then consider this quote at-tributed to Ross Perot (n.d.): “Business is not just doing deals; busi-ness is having great products, doing great engineering, and providingtremendous service to customers. Finally, business is a cobweb ofhuman relationships.” Although funds are available to support inter-national research, PUI grant success is dependent upon how effectivethe institution is at building their web of human relationships. So, if re-search is your business, get out there and start building! N
Mark Roltsch, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Office ofAcademic Research and Sponsored Projects and a faculty mem-ber in the Department of Exercise and Sport Science at St. Mary’sUniversity, San Antonio, Texas. Previous positions include PeerReview Administrator at NASA and Scientific Review Officer atthe National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. He can be reachedat [email protected]
Steven M. Gerardi, MS, is a Visiting Instructor in the De-partment of Exercise and Sport Science at St. Mary’s University.He retired from the U.S. Army after a 30 year career, havinggained international experience in Germany, Honduras, Iraq,Korea, and Kosovo. He can be reached at [email protected]
11
Academia is where more than 60% of the basicresearch in the United States is performed. Fortyof the world’s top fifty research universities are inthe U.S., and U.S. researchers are responsible formore publications in top scientific journals thanresearchers of any other nation, accounting fornearly half of the top one percent of the most citedscientific papers. Still, there is a significant trendof internationalizing scientific research. In 2000,only 25 percent of the U.S. research articles hadan international co-author; today that number is33 percent . Researchers are increasingly mobile,traveling long distances to work with the best col-leagues in their fields. They are being supportedinternationally through cross-border fundingfrom international organizations, multilateral ini-tiatives between governments and research coun-cils, multinational funding bodies, and sharedscientific infrastructure. This trend acknowledgesthat international, multidisciplinary collaborationsare needed to solve global challenges such as cli-mate change, biodiversity, food and water security,energy, and potential pandemics. For researchadministrators, this means dealing with an in-creasingly complex level of issues to facilitateinter-institutional research collaborations.
Collaborating across borders goes beyond geog-raphy. Other barriers come into play, such as re-
sources, time zones, culture, and language. WhenI moved to the United States from Australia, 28years ago, my phone calls home cost $1.21 perminute. I would talk to my mother once a monthfor an hour. I wrote a lot of letters back then –pen on paper letters that took two weeks by air-mail to reach my family. Ironically, one of myU.S.-born adult children went to Scotland for hisundergraduate education, and then to Australia toattend graduate school and where he now lives,9,679 miles and eleven time zones away! He’s anight owl so the time difference isn’t a barrier forus. We talk via Skype for as long as we like, asoften as we like, for the price of internet service,so there are few resource barriers. He and hissister (who lives in the U.S.) are collaborating onSkype to create an on-line game design business.When they want input from their friends fromaround the world, Skype, Face Time, Facebook,Twitter, and e-mail are their tools. They all speakthe same language (and I’m not just talking aboutScottish/American/Australian/British English!).How “Jetsons-like” we have become.
Some borders still exist in our own backyards. Onemight argue that a border exists between re-searchers and research administrators, and thatcrossing that border requires special communica-tion skills. When you consider resources, time
zones, culture, and language, the contrasts of ourworlds are quite jarring. Faculty conduct researchand teach the next generation; administrators man-age and carry out the operations of our complexorganizations. Faculty are in a world of labs withspecialized research equipment, computers fordata analysis and modeling, research centers forspecialized populations, clinical resources, animalresearch facilities, etc. Research administratorswrestle with the nuances of laws and regulations,cost principles, administrative require ments, auditsand compliance, IRBs, IACUCs, grants, contracts,the Code of Federal Regulations, and the FAR.
How do faculty and research administrators col-laborate when our cultures are so different? I sug-gest that if you want to connect with people, youhave to get to know them better. Like any relation-ship, those between faculty and research admin-istrators need nurturing. The more comfortableand confident faculty are with your competence,the more likely they will be to engage with you inthe grant application process. Sometimes the re-search field is quite accessible, particularly in so-cial science, and getting to know something aboutyour faculty’s research will help you appreciate ad-ministrative difficulties they may encounter forwhich you are the best qualified person to address.Ultimately you help your institution when you un-
DECEMBER 2013
Communicating Across Borders
Partnering for SuccessBy Gai Doran
12 NCURA Magazine
derstand your faculty members’ research be-cause you can be more effective at matchingfunding opportunities with their interests, athelping them build budgets that make sense, andat matching researchers with others with whomthey might collaborate.
Let me share a story which I think illustrates howknowing about a faculty member’s research canbe useful. Recently, during a pre-award consul-tation with a faculty member, I asked him to de-scribe his vision for his project, and wasfascinated to learn how he planned to use cellphones to capture information about the behaviorof people when they were in risky environments.I thought his idea was brilliant, and asked “Howare you going to do that?” to which he replied, “Idon’t know yet. I’ll have to find a really cleverprogrammer.” Serendipitously, a few days laterwhile I was visiting colleges with my daughter, Ilearned, during a presentation on links betweencognitive science and computer science, of threealumni who had developed new cell phone tech-nology that allows for automated, individual textmessaging conversations. I saw the potential of apartnership, and was able to link these re-searchers with a few quick emails on my smartphone before I had even left the campus. I madethe connection because I had asked about the re-search, and that faculty member now knows thatI am invested in helping him succeed.
All this is well and good when the news you areconveying is positive. What about when you haveto deliver bad news? Robert Bies offers ten bestpractices:
• There should be no surprises – warn youraudience of what is coming.
• Don’t delay sharing the news, thinking it willimprove – it might get worse!
• Be truthful – don’t hide the facts.
• Keep an accurate, written record of what ledto the problem.
• Explain why are you telling them bad news?
• Find a silver lining – this will help withmorale and productivity.
• Present a solution or an action plan for howyou’re going to solve the problem.
• Inform all stakeholders when you deliver themessage.
• Track the progress of the solution and leteveryone know the problem has been solved.
• Treat people with dignity and respect.
I had cause to employ these practices when thenew Conflict Of Interest (COI) regulations wentinto effect a few weeks before the September 7,2012 AIDS deadline. Our investigators were, inactuality, the institution’s “guinea pigs” as the newprocess was rolled out. My role was that of liaisonbetween the sponsored research office, COI office,anxious investigators and their U.S. and foreigncollaborators. Our sponsored research office andCOI office gave us unwavering support throughthis tense period, and we submitted all the appli-cations on time and in compliance (including acertain P30 Center renewal grant application!).The trust I had established with our faculty stoodme in good stead in guiding them through theprocess, explaining the forms, tracking their re-sponses, keeping them informed of updates, andsympathizing with what they saw as just anotherpiece of red tape in the bureaucracy.
Recently, one of our Russian collaborators wasvisiting our Center. In a sidebar conversation withme, she admitted that she and her colleagues re-ally didn’t understand what they were signing
when we asked them to sign our sub-recipient in-formation and compliance form. We sat down to-gether for the next thirty minutes and talked aboutF&A rates, fringe rates, conflict of interest policies,debarment and suspension, audits, and the finaldeclaration of the form that reads “The appropri-ate programmatic and administrative person-nel involved in this application are aware ofagency policy in regard to sub-awards and areprepared to establish the necessary inter-insti-tutional agreement consistent with those poli-cies….” Not only was this enlightening to her, itwas a useful exercise for me to check in with my-self and make sure I truly understood what wewere asking of these researchers whose primarylanguage is not English.
I consider myself fortunate to be working in aCenter where faculty research contributes to theprevention and care of HIV/AIDS. Our Centerhosts faculty seminars, organizes peer reviews ofgrant proposals and manuscripts, and dissemi-nates research findings. I have ample opportuni-ties to develop some understanding of theirresearch, although I admit that until recently,when researchers discussed the methods they em-ployed to analyze the data, I zoned out. Since tak-ing courses on biostatistics and research designand methods1, I now know the significance (punintended) of a p-value and have a much deeperappreciation of our faculty’s successes as well asthe roadblocks they encounter. Stephen Coveyrecommends that we “Seek first to understand,then to be understood”. We need good strategiesfor understanding our faculty’s research andneeds that match our internal capabilities. Wemay not have much authority, so our leadershipapproach needs to be tailored to the situation. Wemust be able to build teams internally as well asnegotiate – both internally and with our faculty.We can be a source of innovation, generating newideas for new processes and services, and becomeindispensable to faculty, keeping them informedof what is relevant to them. Embrace your admin-istrator-faculty relationships to successfully sup-port what is certainly a future of complex, intra-and inter-institutional collaborations. N
1 A shameless advertisement for Rush University’s Master’s Degree Program in Research Administration
ReferencesBies, R. (2012, May 30). The Ten Commandments for Delivering Bad News. Retrieved from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/05/30/10-commandments-for-delivering-bad-newsCovey, S. R. (2004). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. Free Press.Edler, J., Cunningham, P., & Flanagan, K. (2009). Drivers of International Collaboration in Research. Bruxelles:
European Commission.Grueber, M., & Studt, T. (2012). 2013 Global R&D Funding Forecast. R&D Magazine, 1-35.Markovich, S. J. (2012, November 5). Promoting Innovation Through R&D. Retrieved from Council on Foreign
Relations: http://www.cfr.org/innovation/promoting-innovation-through-rd/p29403Smith, C. L. (2011). Global Scientific Collaboration and Global Problems. The Academic Executive Brief, 2-5.The Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century.
London: The Royal Society. Retrieved from The Academic Executive Brief:http://academicexecutives.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/AEB_1.1_Llewellyn_Smith.pdf
Gai Doran, B.S., Assistant Director,Administration, Center for Interdisci-plinary Research on AIDS (CIRA) atYale University, is enrolled in RushUniversity’s Master’s Program in Re-search Administration. Gai’s respon-sibilities at CIRA include strategic
planning, human resource management, research ad-ministration, and events planning. Gai can bereached at [email protected]
13
When I was a scientist doing research in evo-lutionary biology, I never thought of myself asan exporter. An exporter was a person like ArtVandelay, Elaine’s fake boyfriend on the TVshow Seinfeld who imported chips and ex-ported diapers, or a company like Sony thatmanufactured TVs to sell to consumers inother countries. I thought of myself as a re-searcher. After all, I spent my time studyingthe mechanisms of flowering in plants with thehelp of a Japanese graduate student and a Ger-man postdoc. As a departmental research ad-ministrator (DRA), I now work closely withscientists and engineers every day. They maynot think of themselves as exporters either,but almost all of them are. According to datafrom the National Science Foundation, in2011, 30% of full-time graduate students and53% of postdocs in science and engineeringwere foreign nationals with temporary visas(1, 2). And according to federal regulations,exports include communication with a foreignperson (3, 4) —this is referred to as a‘deemed export.’ Thus, given how many re-searchers are from abroad and in the U.S. onvisas, sharing of data among researchers isvery likely to be a deemed export. Whetherthese deemed exports or any other aspects ofthe research in the department where I workare subject to export controls depends onmany factors. As a DRA, my proximity to theresearchers and to their work puts me in aunique position to identify potential exportcontrol issues.
The purpose of this article is to give DRAs anoverview of the export control landscape sothat you can use your proximity to researchand researchers to identify potential exportcontrol issues. The first step for any DRA is tounderstand the definition of exports and to getan overview of export controls as they relateto the scientists and engineers that you work
alongside. Next, it is important to be aware ofthe common exclusions from export controls.Finally, armed with your new knowledge, youcan implement best practices as you en-counter issues or situations that may be sub-ject to export controls.
What is an Export? An export is a transfer of technology, informa-tion, equipment, software, or services to a for-eign person by any means. A foreign person isdefined as anyone who is not a U.S. citizen orpermanent resident or who is not a protectedindividual (such as someone who has beengranted asylum or refugee status) (4). Ex-ports include the actual transfer of one ofthese items outside the U.S., which is whatmost of us think of when we think of an ex-port. However, exports also include makingany of these items available for visual inspec-tion, written or oral disclosures about theitems, and electronic communication aboutthe items (3) —this is what is referred to as adeemed export. Given the definition of exportsabove, and the fact that as many as half of the
researchers in science and engineering aretemporary visa holders, it is likely thatdeemed exports are occurring frequently inthe departments where you work.
What are Export Controls?Export controls is a broad term applied toU.S. laws that regulate the distribution ofstrategically important technology, services,and information for reasons of national secu-rity, foreign policy, and economic objectives.Export controls are the law, and they apply notjust to sponsored research but to all activities.Many government regulatory agencies are in-volved in export controls, such as the Depart-ment of the Interior, which manages fish andwildlife controls and endangered species, andthe Food and Drug Administration, whichmanages medical devices (5). There are threeprincipal agencies with export control respon-sibilities that most frequently impact universityresearch: the Department of State, the Depart-ment of Commerce, and the Department ofthe Treasury. When determining if an item issubject to export control, start by determining
DECEMBER 2013
Research Across Borders:
Export Controls for Departmental ResearchAdministratorsBy Elizabeth Haney
14 NCURA Magazine
if it is subject to State Department control,and then ask if it is subject to Commerce con-trol, and finally look for any restrictions bythe Treasury.
Export Controls Administered by the Department of State: ITARThe Department of State, through the Direc-torate of Defense Trade Controls, regulatesthe export of defense articles and defenseservices for the purpose of safeguarding U.S.national security and furthering U.S. foreignpolicy objectives. The regulated defense arti-cles and defense services can be found on theUnited States Munitions List (USML), which ispart of the International Traffic in Arms Regu-lations (ITAR). Defense articles include tech-nical data relating to items on the USML (4),and defense services include providing assis-tance or training in the “design, development,engineering, manufacture, production, as-sembly, testing, repair, maintenance, modifi-cation, operation, demilitarization,destruction, processing or use” of defense ar-ticles (4). If your item is not specifically enu-merated on the USML, you can conclude thatit is not subject to ITAR and proceed to deter-mine if it is subject to Commerce control.
Export Controls Administered by the Department ofCommerce: EAR The Department of Commerce, through theBureau of Industry and Security (BIS), regu-lates the export of dual use items under theExport Administration Regulations (EAR).Their mission includes not only supportingU.S. national security and foreign policy ob-jectives, but also ensuring the health of theU.S. economy and the competitiveness of U.S.industry. Items subject to BIS control arelisted in the Commerce Control List (CCL).These items on the CCL include systems,equipment, components, materials, software,and technology. Technology is defined as in-formation necessary for the development,production, and use of an item on the CCLand includes technical data (6). Each itemon the CCL has an Export Control Classifica-tion Number (ECCN) that is used to deter-mine export license requirements andeligibility for exceptions to those require-ments. Items that are not on the CCL are des-ignated as EAR99 and do not require a
license to export. However, EAR99 items arestill subject to restrictions by the Departmentof the Treasury.
Export Controls Administered by the Department of Treasury: OFACThe Department of the Treasury, through theOffice of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC), ad-ministers and enforces economic and tradesanctions against targeted foreign governments,individuals, entities, and practices. OFAC sanc-tions programs are in place to accomplish for-eign policy and national security goals, andthey prohibit providing products or services tosanctioned countries, individuals, or entitieswithout a license. OFAC administers a numberof different sanctions programs, which can beeither comprehensive or selective, and eitherby country or by activity. Examples of compre-hensive country sanctions programs are thoseagainst Syria, Iran, and Cuba. Examples of se-lective activity-based sanctions programs arecounter terrorism sanctions, counter narcoticssanctions, and nuclear non-proliferation sanc-tions. A list of all sanctions programs can befound at (see 1 below) under the resourcestab. Transactions with sanctioned countries, in-dividuals, or entities require a specific licenseor exemption from OFAC. In addition to sanc-tions programs, OFAC also maintains a list ofindividuals and entities, called “Specially Des-ignated Nationals” or “SDNs,” who are operat-ing with or on behalf of controlled countries orwho are participating in controlled activities.The assets of SDNs are blocked and U.S. per-sons are generally prohibited from dealing withthem. A list of SDNs, which is updated fre-quently, can be found here (see 2 below)There are no licenses or exceptions availablefor dealings with SDNs.
By this point, you may be getting worried thatyour department has a major export controlissue. After all, the research going on in yourdepartment involves lots of technology, infor-mation, equipment, and software, and you’venever looked at any of these lists to see if anyof it is controlled. Plus, you know there are alot of folks working with these items and shar-ing this information who are not U.S. citizens,permanent residents or protected individuals.
Don’t panic. There are many exclusions fromexport controls and most likely the researchthat is going on in your department fallsunder one of them.
Exclusions from Export ControlsInformation is not subject to export controlsunder ITAR and EAR if it results from funda-mental research (3,4), is available in thepublic domain (4), or is educational infor-mation (3,4). It is important to note that fun-damental research, public domain, andeducation exclusions apply only to the trans-fer of research data and information to for-eign persons, not to the transfer of materialgoods abroad. In the absence of one of theseexclusions, a license must be obtained fromthe Department of the Treasury, the Depart-ment of State, and/or the Department ofCommerce to share controlled technical in-formation. In general, universities rely on theexclusions above for exports of information.
It is also important to note slight differencesin the definitions of public domain and fun-damental research under the ITAR versus theEAR. The definition of public domain underITAR includes only release at an open gather-ing in the U.S. (such as a conference, meet-ing, seminar, or trade show), whereas thedefinition of public domain under EAR in-cludes open gatherings abroad. The defini-tion of fundamental research under ITARrequires that there be no restrictions onpublication of the research and that there beno restrictions on the participation of foreignnationals in the research (4). In contrast,under EAR, if research qualifies as funda-mental (3), then certain specific national se-curity controls on the research can beaccepted (such as pre-publication reviewand approval of foreign nationals), the re-search is still considered fundamental, andinformation can be exported without violat-ing export controls (7).
There are exemptions to license requirementsunder OFAC that are applicable to universi-ties. Information already in the public domaincan be exported to OFAC countries, and activ-ities in support of publishing (such as aca-
1. http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac2. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/default.aspx
15
demic peer review) are allowed with Iran,Cuba, Sudan, and Burma. There are no exclu-sions for fundamental research or for educa-tional activities under OFAC regulations.However, for persons from OFAC countrieswho are here in the U.S., their research activi-ties while they are in the U.S. are subject topublic domain, fundamental research, andeducation exclusions for exports of informa-tion under ITAR and EAR.
Exporting material goods abroad is alwayssubject to export controls, but not all itemswill require a license to export. There aremany license exemptions available under theEAR (8) and very few under ITAR (9).
Best Practices for DRAsThe university where you work most likely haspolicies and procedures in place at a centrallevel to comply with export controls, yet as aDRA you are in a unique position with regardsto export controls. As the ones who are oftenclosest to research and the researchers, wecan be the first to become aware of potentialexport control issues. Below are some of themost common areas of risk which requirespecial attention. If you come across a poten-tial export control issue in one of these areas,work with others at your university to makesure that you stay in compliance.
Foreign Travel: DRAs are more likely toknow about planned travel by researchersthan someone in the central office. If one ofthe researchers you work with is planning atrip abroad, find out if he or she plans tocarry any research devices or equipment onthe trip, as these items may be subject to li-cense requirements. You might also want tofind out if any unpublished data is being taken
on the trip, for example on the hard drive of alaptop, as this could potentially be subject toexport controls.
Shipping of Material Goods Abroad:Sometimes researchers traveling to anothercountry prefer to ship research devices orequipment rather than hand carry them. Orthe researchers may want to share items withforeign collaborators outside of a plannedtrip. If you find out one of the researchers youwork with is shipping items abroad, youshould connect them with the appropriate ex-port control compliance officers. Although ex-port of goods abroad is always subject toexport control, there are many license exemp-tions under the EAR.
Working with Industry: With the currentfederal funding landscape, research spon-sored by industry is becoming more common.The exclusion from export controls for funda-mental research is nullified if an agreementwith a company includes restrictions on publi-cation of the data, or restrictions on who canwork on the project. It is also nullified if a re-searcher makes a ‘side deal’ to restrict publi-cation or access, and as a DRA, you are theone who may spot such a side deal that couldthreaten the fundamental research exclusion.Another issue to remember when workingwith Industry is that the fundamental researchexclusion does not apply to research con-ducted by a company. So if you have an awardwith a subcontract to an industry collaborator,there could be export control issues, even ifthe university’s research is fundamental.
International Collaborations: Workingwith collaborators in other countries is likelyto involve foreign travel and may also involveshipping of material goods.
Looking back on my time as a researcher, Inow know that I was an exporter. Any time Ishared my data with the Japanese graduatestudent and German postdoc, I was effectivelyexporting the data to their home countries —a deemed export. However, my research wasnot subject to export controls. As fundamentalresearch, it was excluded from regulation bythe Commerce Department or the State De-partment, and since my work did not involvetravel to, or interaction with, persons in sanc-tioned countries such as Cuba, Iran, or NorthKorea, it was also excluded from regulation bythe Treasury Department. Although I was notaware of any of the export control implica-tions of my research at the time, there wasprobably a DRA who was.
SummaryAn export is a transfer of technology, infor-mation, equipment, software, or services byany means to anyone who is not a U.S. citi-zen, a permanent resident, or a protectedindividual. Export controls are the law, andthey apply to not only sponsored researchbut to all activities. Export controls that mostfrequently impact sponsored research arethe International Traffic in Arms Regulations(ITAR), the Export Administration Regula-tions (EAR), and sanctions programs. Thetransfer of information is not subject to ex-port controls if it results from fundamentalresearch, is available in the public domain,or is educational information. Exportingmaterial goods abroad is always subject toexport controls, but not all material goodswill require a license to export. DRAs arewell positioned to identify potential riskaround activities such as foreign travel, ship-ping, working with industry, and interna-tional collaborations. N
DECEMBER 2013
References1. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2013). “NSF 13-
328: Part-time Graduate Enrollment in Science and Engineering in 2011 Grew at a Higher Rate thanFull-time Enrollment” [Press Release] Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13328
2. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2013). “Counts ofPostdoctoral Appointees in Science, Engineering, and Health Rise with Reporting Improvements” [PressRelease] Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13334
3. Export Administration Regulations, 15 C.F.R. § 734 (2013).4. International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 CFR § 120 (2013).5. Export Administration Regulations, 15 C.F.R. § 730 (2013).6. Export Administration Regulations, 15 C.F.R. § 772 (2013).7. Export Administration Regulations, 15 C.F.R. § 734, Supplement 1 (2013).8. Export Administration Regulations, 15 C.F.R. § 740 (2013).9. International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 CFR § 125 (2013).
Elizabeth Haney is a Senior Re-search Officer at the Wyss Institute forBiologically Inspired Engineering atHarvard University. She began her re-search administration career at the WyssInstitute in 2011. Her background in-cludes research, scientific writing and
editing, and lab administration. Elizabeth graduatedfrom Florida State University with a Bachelor of Sciencein Biology, from Brown University with a Master of Sci-ence in Biology, and from Emmanuel College with a Mas-ter of Science in Management. She is actively involvedwith NCURA, and has served on the Program Committeefor the Region I annual meeting. Elizabeth can bereached at [email protected]
We are pleased to report that development of the FRA conference program is nearly finished. Track leaders have engaged thoughtleaders and innovators to create an amazing program! Not only will the ongoing issues of post-award administration be addressed,but the program will do so in the context of the current research environment. Rapid, unplanned changes in the federal governmenthave impacted us all. Foundations and corporate-sponsored research have added unique requirements. International researchhas added the complexity of an unfamiliar vernacular and program requirements. Innovative strategies, new tools and techniqueswill be offered and allow us to employ the best solutions for seemingly insurmountable challenges – the possible!
Track leaders have recruited stellar research administrators to present workshops, concurrent sessions and moderate discussiongroups. Each will share best practices that can be easily transferred to other institutions.FRA conference attendees will return to their home institutions with the tools to be moreeffective in their positions while improving relationships with the many customers in spon-sored research. Our collective goal is to give attendees the ability to develop profession-ally, expand professional networks, and learn from the experiences of others. Homeinstitutions which support professional development will gain by the implementation ofideas and improvements gleaned from the ideas and key points learned at FRA. Now isthe time to request travel authorization – the practical!
Some highlights from the FRA 2014 program are a three part series on a real audit expe-rience where both the agency and university perspectives are presented, a live contractnegotiation, how the impending A-81 OMNI circular will impact our business and the insand outs of F&A, from which method to use, to planning and negotiating. We are so happy to have Kimberly Pace as the keynotespeaker. We will all benefit from her expertise on developing our Executive AURA!
There is never a situation that is unique to one individual or institution; these issues usually impact us all in some way. FRA 2014will offer many new resources that are only a few keystrokes away. We challenge each of you to identify one thing to bring backto your organization which will improve operations. Share this knowledge with stake holders at your institution – turn the possibleinto the practical!
In research administration, we must innovate at the rate of scientific advancement if we are to be effective in supporting research.Collaboration is equally important for those in research administration. Learn about the best practices of others and make thembetter by attending the FRA meeting. We look forward to seeing you in San Francisco!
17
University ResearchAdministration in JapanBy Keiko Okano, Global Contributing Editor, Japan
A little about myself, mostly as a University Re-search Administrator (URA):
My career as a URA is short. In the fall of 2011, Istarted as a grant proposal editor for a particulargrant program at a private university. I really likedthe job, and they seemed to be happy with my per-formance, so I was hired for a longer term. I en-joyed interacting with faculty and researchers, and
wanted to do more for them. Then I found a post-ing for a “research administrator” position atKyoto University, which became my current pro-fession in January 2013.
My primary responsibility still is proposal editing,but I also help with organizing symposiums, doinformation gathering and analyses, support con-tract negotiations, edit journal manuscripts, and… pretty much anything as requested. This is be-cause URA’s are quite new in Japan and peopledon’t know what to expect of us. Therefore, I amin the process of building experience and trustbetween URA’s and researchers, and I believemost, if not all, of my colleagues in this country
are doing the same.
In my free time, I try totake advantage of living inKyoto, the city filled withtraditional beauty of Japan.I visit temples and shrinesand walk or bike aroundthe back streets of the city.I also started to learn howto wear kimono, tradi-tional Japanese clothing.Once I master this to someextent, I will try other tra-ditional cultural activities,such as tea ceremony andincense burning.
Japan’s research over -view and its direction:Being scarce in mar-ketable natural resources,Japan has been geared to-ward establishing itselfupon science and technol-
ogy. In 1996, Basic Act on Science and Technologywas enacted. Its basic principle is to raise Japan’sstandard of science and technology, throughwhich we promote our economic growth and wel-fare in addition to contributing to the global ad-vancement of science and technology andsustainable development. Every five years since, aScience and Technology Basic Plan is formulated,based on which individual programs are pro-posed and implemented.
The first (1996-2000) and the second (2001-2005) Basic Plans expanded the government in-vestment in research and development, promotingbasic research and strategically prioritizing fundsfor R&D addressing national and social issues.They also expanded competitive funds and re-structured national universities and research in-stitutions. The third (2006-2010) Basic Planstressed on more strategic implementation ofR&D, while reserving room for research diversityand independent basic research. It set eight pri-oritized areas of study: Life science, informationcommunication technology (ICT), environment,nano-tech/material, energy, manufacturing tech-nology, social infrastructure, and frontier science.
Delivery of the fourth Science and TechnologyBasic Plan (2011-2015) was delayed due to thegreat east Japan earthquake. Recovery from thedisaster is the top priority, but it also raisedawareness of global issues. In addition, the word“innovation” is taking the center stage. Strategicsystems are to be established, and government-industry-academia networking is strengthened, inorder to spur innovation. The two fields of specialemphasis are “green” (energy supply, conserva-tion, and infrastructure) and “life” (prevention,early diagnosis, and treatment of diseases, andquality of life improvement for the sick, elderly,and disabled).
Other policies worth mentioning for the readersof this magazine are 1) The reinforcement andpromotion of research universities and 2) Thesupport for internationalization of universities.
Editor’s Note: NCURA members are all over the world. To ensure that our Magazine reaches out to the various members we have aroundthe globe and addresses their interests and issues, we are creating global contributing editors; our initial group is from Canada, Europe,and Japan. Below is a profile of each of our new editors, we believe you will benefit from their contributions in 2014.
Global Contributing Editors
DECEMBER 2013
Keiko Okano and Duckythe seagull take in somesights throughout Japan.
The former mandates active involvement of URAs,which should help establish our standing. The lat-ter promotes international research collabora-tions and invites researchers, instructors, andstudents from overseas, as well as sending abroadJapanese researchers, instructors, and students.It means that WE, including YOU, have greaterchances to work together!
With this in scope, in the future articles, I wouldlike to introduce what Japanese URAs do and dis-cuss how we can collaborate. In the next article,I will report on the 3rd URA Symposium and the5th RA Study Group Meeting which will be jointlyheld on November 18-19 at Kyoto University.There, URAs from all over Japan will gather anddiscuss the formation of a national URA network.
From Rock Hound to CatHerder/Research Administrator- University ResearchAdministration in EuropeBy Olaf Svenningsen, Global Contributing Editor, Europe
Originally trained as a scientist with a Ph.D. in ge-ology from Lund University in Sweden, my knowl-edge of extremely slow moving and unstoppable
tectonic forces and sudden, unexpected naturaldisasters has turned out to be somewhat appro-priate in my role as a research administrator, too.My subduction into research administrationbegan in 2000, when I was employed by the NSFto be the office manager of the NSF-MARGINS Pro-gram, that office being located at Columbia Uni-versity in New York. In 2003, I moved back to mynative Sweden, to Uppsala University, and the jobof setting up a grants office, a new feature for thatinstitution. In 2009, I moved to Denmark and theUniversity of Southern Denmark (SDU) inOdense, the birth town of the storyteller HansChristian Andersen. Here, I am head of a smallresearch support office, providing service prima-rily to SDU’s Faculty of Health Sciences and thehospital-based research in the Region of SouthernDenmark. In addition, I am presently interimchair of DARMA, the Danish Association of Re-search Managers and Administrators, and mem-ber of the board of its European sisterorganization, EARMA.
I still retain some geology activities, and enjoy hik-ing in the arctic wilderness of the Sarek Moun-tains in northernmost Sweden, where I also didthe fieldwork for my Ph.D. thesis. Denmark, onthe other side, is pleasantly flat and absolutelymountain-free (the “Funen Alps” just south ofOdense are ironically named, gently rolling, lowhills), so as often as we can, my wife and I get outon our custom-built touring tandem bike, enjoy-ing the scenic and very pretty countryside. Tan-dem biking is also the ultimate test of trust andcollaboration skills.
Research in Europe reflects some major politicaltrends, as well as the region’s heterogeneity. WhileEurope has a long, proud history of scientific dis-covery and breakthrough, there are concerns aboutcompetitiveness. “Brain drain” to the US is a con-cern as well as the growing competition from the
emerging economies in for e.g. the BRIC countries.Making all the different ends meet is challenging:The European Union consists of 28 independentcountries, each with its own history and traditions,not least when it comes to academic traditions andresearch systems. In addition there are the so-called Associated Countries – non-EU memberstates like Norway and Switzerland (the US is alsoan “AC”) – shaping a complex situation. Imaginethat each state in the US would have its own, com-pletely and fiercely independent academic traditionand funding system, and you get an idea of the Eu-ropean research landscape. Each country has itsown public funding agencies, roughly equivalent tothe NIH and the NSF, but also a wildly varyingplethora of private or semi-private foundations andcharities, each with their own rules and expecta-tions. Research administration is often comparedto herding cats, and such complex settings makethe challenge… let’s call it “interesting”.
The EU’s Commission (EC) – the executive bodyor administration of the EU – is the major playerin European cross-national research funding. EU’sresearch funding does not operate through regularfunding agencies á la NIH or NSF. Instead, it is or-ganized into time-limited, so called “FrameworkPrograms” (FP). These FP’s have had a major im-pact, transforming European research funding –also at the national level – over the past decades.The thing of the moment is the launch in January2014 of the 8th Framework Program for Researchand Innovation, called Horizon 2020 that will rununtil 2020. With an estimated budget of c. €70 bil-lion (c. $95 billion), Horizon 2020 is one of thebiggest research funding programs ever.
It is my ambition to contribute articles to NCURAMagazine that explore and explain this Europeansituation – the EU and national perspectives –with a Trans-Atlantic or American angle.
Keiko Okano, Ph.D., UniversityResearch Administrator at Kyoto Univer-sity in Kyoto, Japan, is a graduate of TheUniversity of Tokyo and University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. She can be reachedat [email protected]
Looking for new directions from theVuoinestjåhkkå Ridge while hiking in theSarek National park in Lapland, northern-most Sweden.
Olaf M. Svenningsen, Ph.D.,Head of Southern Denmark ResearchSupport at The University of SouthernDenmark (SDU) and the Region ofSouthern Denmark. Olaf’s primary re-sponsibilities at SDU are pre-award ac-tivities, including strategy and systems
development and implementation. Olaf is presently in-terim chair of DARMA, the Danish Association for Re-search Managers and Administrators, and board memberat its European sister organization, EARMA. He can bereached at [email protected]
19
University ResearchAdministration in CanadaBy Martin Kirk, Global Contributing Editor, Canada
Research and research administration in Canadais an interesting, challenging business and wehave a lot in common with you, our US colleagues!
On the research front, Canada may be small in rel-ative output but produces top quality research aspart of the global innovation capacity. We have 3universities amongst the top 40 in the Times HigherEducation (THE) World University Rankings.
CAURA (The Canadian Association of UniversityResearch Administrators) is your sister associa-tion that represents the research administrationprofession in Canada, and we have around 830members across the country. We have over 40years of history as an association and providemany of the services (conferences, networkingand professional development) that NCURA pro-vides its members.
In working more closely with NCURA in the futurewe hope we can reach out and partner for thebenefit of the profession in North America and be-yond! The co-sponsoring of INORMS in Washing-ton, DC in 2014 is a very valuable partnership andwill benefit our sister organizations and theirmembers around the globe. We have much tolearn from each other!
There are a number of hot topics I’d like toexplore over the coming year including:
• The evolving global innovation strategy andthe part Canada is playing – The global inno-vation strategy seems to be tilting away fromthe focus on university spin-off towards en-hanced industry partnership and knowledgemobilization. We know university based re-search is important but we still don’t seem toknow the best way to “capture or measure thereturn on investment”.
• Important new and evolving research poli-cies: open access, data management planning,etc. – We are all slaves to the ever changingcompliance landscape and trying to protect re-searcher productivity. How to maintain com-pliance and provide frictionless administration
in an evolving compliance landscape is the mil-lion dollar question!
• Research Metrics - Research impact, researchadministration metrics (efficiency, capacity,etc.). We live in a world of endless assessment.We have STAR Metrics, Snowball, REF, ERA,THE, QS, SciVal, InCites and many other assess-ment systems and tools. What does it all mean,how do we measure success, and what key per-formance indicators make sense?
• Research administration as a career… com-paring CAURA survey to global data – SimonKerr in Melbourne, Australia carried out a neatstudy on the state of the profession. CAURA isnow in the process of carrying out a parallelsurvey to look closely at the profession inCanada and compare with Australia and hope-fully the US.
• Research administration (IT) systems…How they help us become more efficient andcompliant –Deploying state-of-the-art systemsto track research funding and compliance isvital to maintain efficiency, but it is a risky andexpensive business. There are many productsto choose from. What are the best approachesto planning a system and how do we avoidwasting time and money and even failed sys-tem implementation?
• Indirect Cost of Research (ICR)…How longcan we continue to subsidize research that doesnot come with ICR funds and how the rates ofICR funding vary across the globe? How do weassess the true cost of research and what is thebest practice in tracking and recovering ICR? N
DECEMBER 2013
Martin Kirk, Ph.D., is currentlypresident of the Canadian Associationof University Administrators (CAURA)and director of the office of researchservices at The University of British Co-lumbia in Vancouver. Prior to workingat UBC Martin was associate VP re-
search at the University of Calgary. He is a graduate ofHeriot-Watt University in Edinburgh (BSc in chem-istry) and University of Calgary (PhD in applied chem-istry-1989). Martin worked in research in industrybefore embarking on a career in research administra-tion in 1999. Martin enjoys sailing, hiking, golfing,travelling, photography and skiing, and can be reachedat [email protected]
Martin Kirk hikes up to CheakamusLake in Garibaldi park near Squamishin British Columbia, Canada.
20 NCURA Magazine
“Research Across Borders” – the theme of this month’s NCURA Magazine per-fectly matches the objectives of BILAT USA 2.0 – a project funded by the EuropeanUnion, Directorate General for Research and Innovation. It is well-documentedfact that international cooperation in research and innovation has the potentialto multiply the return on investment gained from only domestic public expendi-ture. Therefore, with the overall objective of facilitating research and innovationcooperation between US and European scientists and innovators, BILAT USA 2.0functions as a ‘flexible instrument’ responding to the needs of (a) Researchers,(b) Research managers, and (c) Policy-makers.
The project’s thematic direction is oriented towards the EU-US Science &Technology Agreement that determines four priority areas for cooperation– namely Marine and Arctic Science, Health research, Transport &Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production Technolo-gies (NMP). Up to now, BILAT USA 2.0 has been involved in two major eventsin Galway and Rome related to the newly launched Transatlantic ResearchAlliance and BILAT USA 2.0 has organized a first ‘thematic workshop’ in thearea of NMP inviting European and US nano-scientists and materials-re-searchers. By bringing researchers of one specific area from both sides ofthe Atlantic together and giving them room for discussion, it is intended to
increase the number of international research cooperation projects. At thesame time European funding opportunities and possibilities for US re-searchers within Horizon 2020, the new European Framework Programmefor Research and Innovation that is planned to be launched still in 2013.
BILAT USA 2.0 further organizes targeted events for research managers andmultipliers within the USA explaining legal and financial specificities of up-coming Horizon 2020 as well as giving an overview of programs and opencalls. In the aftermath of this year’s NCURA Annual Meeting, a start has beenmade by organizing a very practical workshop in Washington providing de-tailed information about developments in Horizon 2020 and changes in pro-grams frequently used by US-scientists, e.g. Marie-Curie Actions or theEuropean Research Council (ERC).
Within the next two years the project will organize thematic workshops inits priority areas as well as Horizon 2020 awareness raising activities for US-researchers and research managers. BILAT USA 2.0 events will be announcedon the project’s website. N
Visit us: www.euussciencetechnology.eu
IN MEMORIAM
After a brief illness, NCURA Past President Cheryl-Lee Howard passed away on November 10, 2013, with her familyat her bedside. Howard, Assistant Provost for Research Administration at the Johns Hopkins University, was a mem-ber of NCURA for over thirty years and during that time held a number of positions within the organization.
At the Regional level of NCURA, Cheryl-Lee was elected and served as Treasurer for both Regions I and II andserved on numerous committees. Nationally she was elected and served as Treasurer, Vice President, President, andImmediate Past President. Over the years, Cheryl chaired or served on a number of NCURA committees includingthe Board of Directors, Executive Committee, Finance, Nominating & Leadership Development Committee, and
Professional Development Committee. Known as a mentor and teacher to many research administrators, she was part of the LeadershipTeam during NCURA’s launch of the Leadership Development Institute. She was the co-chair of the inaugural University/Industry Col-laboration national conference, the forerunner of the UIDP and also a springboard for NCURA’s global activities. She was a faculty forNCURA’s traveling workshop Sponsored Projects Administration Level II: Critical Issues in Research Administration, and appeared onNCURA TV along with countless Annual Meeting and national conference panels and workshops. She was a co-author in the first editionof NCURA’s The Role of Research Administration. In 2003, she was one of five individuals to receive a special commendation from theNCURA Board of Directors for her role in the strategic direction and redesign of NCURA’s governance; a four year project that took place,in part, during her vice presidency and presidency. She received the Distinguished Service Award in 2004 and in 2008 NCURA bestowedits highest honor to her, the Award for Outstanding Achievement in Research Administration.
She is survived by her husband Jim, daughter Alyssa and her husband Vincent and their sons Vincent and Zachary. The family has requested memorial donations may be made to the American Cancer Society, 8219 Town Center Drive Nottingham, MD 21236.
https://donate.cancer.org/index?campaign=legacy&dn=mem&fn=Cheryl&ln=Howard
Promoting and Enhancing EU-US Research & Innovation Cooperation
21
The Science of Team Science:
By Andrew Steiland Linda Samson
DECEMBER 2013
22 NCURA Magazine
Trend Toward Research CollaborationCollaborative research is not a new concept andhas been historically associated with two or moreresearchers from the same discipline at the sameinstitution. The ability to share a common lan-guage and methodological approach made itmore appealing for faculty and staff to conductresearch, especially when additional duties wererequired by the institution. This view haschanged in our present environment as moreteam-based research projects recognize thevalue in multiple disciplines addressing morecomplex problems facing our scientific and so-cietal communities. The structure can rangeacross three levels of collaboration: 1. Multidisciplinary: Team members look at
the project from the view of their own specificdiscipline
2. Interdisciplinary: The knowledge and meth-ods from more than one discipline are com-bined to solve the problem
3. Transdisciplinary: The research strategycrosses many disciplinary boundaries to createa holistic approach
Each of these contributes to inter-professionalcollaboration, where two or more disciplineslearn from one another to share a commonmeaning to their problem-solving actions. Theseefforts are often viewed as the application ofteam science: collaborative approaches areused to answer research questions about par-ticular phenomena.
The Science of Team ScienceThe field of inquiry into the science behind teamscience is based on an understanding of how col-laborations work and the methods that are used.Researchers investigating the science of team sci-ence may identify approaches to facilitate the for-mation and functioning of successful collaborativescience teams, remove inter-institutional barriersto team science, support effective collaborationamong researchers working together within ateam, and develop team science training pro-
grams (Fiore, 2008; Stokols, Taylor, Moser, 2008;Bennett, Gadlin, Levine-Finley, 2010). As the fieldof team science emerges, one of the challenges isthe vast disparity in the units of measurement ofcollaborations. Some of the disparity comes fromvariation in disciplinary composition, size of theteam, organizational complexity, and geographicscope. Additional disparity emerges from theoverall goals of the teams, some focused on edu-cation, others on service delivery, and additionalteams building research collaborations (Stokols,Taylor, Moser, 2008).
Depending on the size, complexity, and goal of theresearch, the following steps should be consid-ered in the development of collaborative researchpartnerships:
1. Plan: Build successful relationships well in ad-vance of any Request for Proposal (RFP) dead-lines
2. Integrate: Peer review members at the Officeof Extramural Research can easily tell whenpeople have been placed on a team and not in-tegrated into it. Do not include researchersjust to check off grant requirements
3. Scrutinize: Agencies tend to fund proposalsincluding senior investigators with an estab-lished record
4. Simplify: Resist the urge to be expansive. Ifyou include all possible collaborators you willcreate a bloated, unproductive team
New Image for SponsoredResearch CollaborationUntil recently, many research institutions have hadlittle incentive to move outside their comfort zoneof basic research to explore and advance discov-eries in clinical application (Portilla, Evans, Eng,Fadem, 2010). For example, although basic bio-medical research has shown great strides in un-derstanding disease mechanisms, there have notbeen commensurate gains in new disease treat-ments, diagnostics, and preventative strategies.This issue is commonly addressed through the es-tablishment of research alliances among variousgroups with different strengths and viewpointswho seek to achieve the goal of translating basicbiomedical research into improved clinical med-icine. The widening gap between basic and clin-ical research, a major barrier to progresssometimes known as ‘the valley of death,’ helpedcarve the way for many of today’s federal decisionmaking models and funding regimens.
Over the past decade, the demand for the com-mercialization of research discoveries has greatlyincentivized scientific collaboration. While basicbiomedical research still makes up a large por-tion of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)portfolio, many investigators have recently foundcuts to the availability of these funding opportu-nities. Instead, the agency has developed a pref-erence for projects with the shortest timelines forcreating vaccines and other clinical applications;an approach that is best executed through collab-orative endeavors. Spearheading this effort are60 Clinical and Translational Science Centers(CTSCs) at universities and academic health cen-ters across the country. One of the most success-ful examples of this practice is led by theUniversity of California, Davis. The CTSA Pharma-ceutical Assets Portal aims to find, through indus-try-academic collaborations, new uses forcompounds whose commercial development isno longer being developed by pharmaceuticalcompanies (Marusina, Welsch, Rose, Brock,
To capitalize on these initiatives, many institutions have begun to encourage their faculty and staff to work in a more inte-
grative fashion in recognition that teams are more likely to have a faster and fuller impact than independent researchers.
The practice of team science, and the factors contributing to its success, should be of interest whether you are an institutional
administrator interested in facilitating collaboration among research faculty or a senior investigator with a track record of
obtaining large federal funding grants.
Characteristics of an Effective Team
• Effective leadership and management skills• Self-awareness and team awareness• Trust is established among team members • Strategies developed for communicating
openly• Effective building of a team, including set-
ting shared expectations and defining rolesand responsilbities
• Creating, sharing, and revisiting a shared vi-sion
• Making provisions for appropriate recogni-tion and credit
• Promoting disagreement while containingconflict
• Enjoying the science and the work together
23
Bahr, 2012). These findings can often be repur-posed for other diagnoses, such as the treatmentof rare disease.
The NIH, which had not actively pursued orfunded collaborative research until the early2000s, is behind the National Science Foundation(NSF) in funding interdisciplinary research. NSFhas been refining various models, including theEngineering Research Centers, since the mid-1980s. More recently, the agency launched Sci-ence and Technology Centers and the Industry andUniversity Cooperative Research Program to spurthe momentum of scientific collaboration. In amove to match NSF’s efforts, NIH has made severalsubstantial investments in collaborative researchopportunities over the past decade. The Roadmapfor Medical Research, released in 2003, was cre-ated to identify major opportunities and gaps inbiomedical research that no single institute at NIHcould tackle alone. The roadmap seeks to sup-port both individual creativity and collaborativeteam efforts by supporting interdisciplinary re-search, high-risk research, and public-privatepartnerships (NIH Roadmap). Other measures,such as the creation of the multiple principal in-vestigator (PI) function in 2007, have been takento ensure the viability of team science initiatives.
Many agencies are increasingly structuring re-quests for proposals to favor the involvement ofinterdisciplinary teams. The NIH and NSF bothhave plans in place to support projects that askfor researchers in different disciplines to worktogether. For example, NIH Program Project/
Center Grants (P-Series) fund investigators whoare working on related projects that draw onshared resources. Most research administratorsare also familiar with NSF’s collaborative re-search awards, which competitively fund severalgrantees under one award. These are awardedeither as one proposal, in which a single awardis being requested by a lead organization andcollaborative institutions (non-leads) serve as
subawardees or as simultaneous submission ofproposals from different organizations requestingseparate awards. The collaborative require-ments of these proposals often fall to the spon-sored research office because of the great dealof work required behind the scenes with col-leagues at non-lead institutions.
ConclusionUndoubtedly collaborative research will continueto evolve and become more valuable to our re-search institutions. Key stakeholders must startdown the collaborative path today to understandhow these resources can drive their organiza-tion’s desired outcomes in the future. So, thequestion then becomes—where should leadersstart? Have you given your researchers and staffthe tools they need to create a collaborative at-mosphere? Or, do they start by creating that at-mosphere themselves, so that when theresources arrive, the infrastructure is able tohandle the challenge? Based on most observa-tions to date, the answer seems to be both. Thusfar institutions have chosen to tackle the issue indifferent ways—some opting to highlight it intheir strategic plans, while others are still unsureof their approach. We face a unique and unclearopportunity ahead—make sure you are in-formed and aware of the opportunities availableto you and your institutions. Good luck! N
DECEMBER 2013
Andrew Steil, CRA, is an Analyst inthe Higher Education and Life Sciencespractice at Huron Consulting Group.Andrew has experience with researchadministration operations support andbusiness process analysis and redesign,particularly in the areas of pre- and
post-award administration. Prior to Huron, he workedas a Research Coordinator for an NIH-funded collabora-tive research center, focusing primarily on health dis-parities and population science. In addition, he is amember of NCURA and SRA. Andrew can be reached [email protected]
Linda F. Samson, PhD, RN, BC, NEA,BC, is a Professor of Nursing and HealthAdministration and former Dean of theCollege of Health & Human Services atGovernors State University. She has servedas the PI on two NIH-funded collaborativeresearch centers and has been actively
engaged in collaborative research efforts for over 15 yearswith more than $18 million of research funding aroundhealth disparities. Prior to Governors State, she served asdean of a School of Health Sciences at Clayton State Uni-versity. Dr. Samson can be reached at [email protected]
ReferencesBennett, L. M., Gadlin, H., & Levine-Finley, S. (2010). Collaboration & Team Science: A Field Guide. Collaboration
& Team Science: A Field Guide. Accessed September 18, 2013, fromhttps://ccrod.cancer.gov/confluence/download/attachments/47284665/TeamScience_FieldGuide.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1285330231523
Portilla, Lili M., Greg Evans, Benjamin Eng, and Terry J. Fadem. “Advancing Translational ResearchCollaborations.” Science Translational Medicine. (2010). Accessed September 20, 2013, fromhttp://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/63/63cm30.full
Fiore, S. M. (2008). Interdisciplinary As Teamwork: How The Science Of Teams Can Inform Team Science. SmallGroup Research, 39(3), 251-277.
Marusina, K., Welsch, D. J., Rose, L., Brock, D., & Bahr, N. (2012). The CTSA Pharmaceutical Assets Portal – apublic–private partnership model for drug repositioning. NIH Public Access Author Manuscript. A September18, 2013, from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388510
Stokols, D., Hall, K., Taylor, B., & Moser, R. (2008). The Science Of Team Science: Overview Of The Field AndIntroduction To The Supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S77-S89.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The Increasing Dominance Of Teams In Production Of Knowledge.Science, 316(5827), 1036-1038.
“Research Teams of the Future.” NIH Roadmap . National Institutes of Health (n.d.) Accessed October 22, 2013,from http://commonfund.nih.gov/researchteams
NIH Commitment to Team Science
2003NIH’s Bioengineering Consortium (BECON)hosts “Catalyzing Team Science” symposium
NIH Roadmap includes “Research Teams ofthe Future” as a focus area
2006NIH Tenure Review Committee revises criteriato include “team science”
Clinical and Translational Science Awards(CTSA) Consortium is established to supportand promote interdisciplinary teams
2006-2007NIH Guide for Intramural Research is re-vised to include a more robust description
of collaborative teams
2007NIH institutes a multiple-PI grant mechanism
Bennett, Gadlin, Levine-Finley, 2012
24 NCURA Magazine
Human Capital Career paths and office structure and training (ohmy)! And don’t forget employee development . . . . Navigate through thistrack for a better understanding of the human element in researchadministration.
Funding Opportunities and Proposal Development In a difficultfunding environment, it’s more important than ever to understand whatopportunities are best for a given project and to explore alternativeoptions. Take this track towards essential information on finding fundingand preparing the most competitive proposal possible.
Federal How will the proposed Omni Circular affect us in our day-to-day work? What are the latest developments at the National ScienceFoundation and the National Institutes of Health? Just how areinstitutions dealing with the administrative burden of complying withfederal regulations? How are your peers dealing with budget cuts andsequestration? These topics and more will be covered in our federalsessions. All aboard!
Compliance Our compliance sessions will help you to stay on the righttrack in properly administering sponsored research. Stops along the wayinclude human subjects research, data management, conflict of interest,and audits. We won’t forget to address those grey areas that so oftenthreaten to derail us.
Medical This track will travel along familiar scenery for medicalresearch administrators by covering topics such as clinical trials,veteran’s administration and university collaborations, as well asmanaging clinical faculty and scientists. We’ll also explore how to forgeahead in an environment in which there is less and less NIH funding.
Departmental No matter the condition of the track, no research train
can run without solidadministration at thedepartment level. Thesesessions are your ticket tobest practices on workingwith the central office,collaborating with otherdepartments, and using metrics in departmental research administration.
Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions How can a track runin 27 different directions at the same time? Research administrators atpredominantly undergraduate institutions understand exactly how thiscan happen. Hop aboard for sessions on dealing with issues that face thePUI research administrator every day.
International Although international issues are woven throughout ourtracks, this track covers the topic in more detail. It focuses on pre-awardresearch administration for our international colleagues, as well as USresearch administrators working on international collaborations. Nopassport required, just come to this platform and head down the track.
We look forward to seeing you in San Francisco! You will take away newconnections, new skills, and a bright outlook on your researchadministration horizons.
The Pre-Award Research Administration (PRA) Conference in San Francisco, March 18-20, 2014 is for you, regardless of your pre-or post-award emphasis. Join your colleagues for informative sessions that will help you with your everyday job. In addition to attendinginformative sessions, you will have the opportunity to meet new colleagues and form mutually beneficial relationships that continue longafter the conference is over.
We’ll kick off our sessions with a keynote by Dr. Robert Sapolsky, stress expert and friend to baboons. Dr. Sapolsky lived among baboons inKenya to learn more about stress and stress-related illnesses. He will speak about why we respond to stress and what we can do about it.And if you don’t believe a talk on stress can be entertaining, you are in for a very pleasant surprise.
After our keynote, take the following “cable car” tracks towards a bright new horizon:
Mary Louise Healy is co-chair for the 8th PRA Conference. She isa long-time NCURA member and is a graduate of the Leadership De-velopment Institute and Executive Leadership Program and a proudRegion II member and volunteer. Mary Louise currently serves as theDirector of Research Administration for the Krieger School of Arts and
Sciences, Johns Hopkins University. Prior to that, she worked for 21 years in researchadministration at Towson University. She can be reached at [email protected]
25
Making connectionsWe all have a story about a new connection madeat a conference but what makes this story comealive is that the connections you will read aboutturned into real, instant, sustainable collabora-tions, new collegial partnerships, new strategicresearch endeavours, and new trusted friend-ships. We would like to share our story to high-
light how a chance meeting can (and does!) turninto ongoing collaborations, engagement, andcontinued professional development.
ImpactOnce upon a time in a hospitality suite at theNCURA 54th Annual Meeting, three girls from Aus-tralia – Bryony Wakefield, Sue O’Brien and Julie
Ward were experiencing the new and exciting‘hospitality suite hopping’ activities that happenat NCURA meetings and randomly bumped into alady dressed up as an Indian, which turned outto be Denise Clark from the University of Mary-land. Bryony, Sue and Julie spoke to Denise foraround 5 minutes, posed for a few photos, tradedbusiness cards and then went about their night.
New Collaborations are Possible
and PricelessBy Denise Clark, Sue O’Brien, Bryony Wakefield and Julie Ward
DECEMBER 2013
26 NCURA Magazine
And so, the relationship began, with this im-promptu exchange of smiles, laughs and intrigue.In an instant, it was obvious that they had the syn-ergy, personality and desire to build a new pro-fessional network.
Knowledge TransferOne day after unpacking from the Annual Meeting,Denise came across those beloved business cardsand had an instant flashback, remembering thethree Australian research administrators; theircharisma, enthusiasm, marked interest in NCURAand its professional development opportunities,and……their accents. Following up on the dis-cussions that occurred in those now infamous fiveminutes, Denise reached out to Julie and that iswhen they started to seriously discuss potentialtopics for Denise to present at the AustralasianResearch Management Society (ARMS) Confer-ence in Adelaide in September 2013. After monthsof email correspondence and potential sessiondescription writings (tweaking and re-tweaking),Denise’s abstracts were selected for inclusion inthe ARMS program. Filled with excitement aboutthis amazing positive outcome, Julie proposed andspearheaded an itinerary for Denise to visit Aus-tralia and share research administration knowl-edge above and beyond what was confirmedthrough ARMS. Julie organized a visit to her in-stitution – the University of New South Wales – forDenise to meet with the Executiveteam within the Division of Researchand to present to over 60 senior re-search administrators on topicssuch as US compliance and the auditprocesses. Denise and Julie thenwent to Adelaide where Denise wasa co-presenter in a pre-conferenceworkshop on “US-Australia Re-search Collaborations: Whole-of-lifeFinancial Management to SupportSuccessful Outcomes”. Denise sub-sequently delivered the two acceptedabstracts as presentations at theARMS conference; “Recognising Re-search Management as a Global Pro-fession” and “US Collaborations –How do I Provide Adequate Over-sight of a Collaboration/Subaward”.These presentations were well at-tended, well received, extremely in-
teractive, and highlighted the importance of shar-ing knowledge across the globe. It was clear thatthe NCURA method for knowledge transfer,through its professional development programsand commitment to establishing research admin-istration as a recognized global profession, was amodel for other international research adminis-tration organizations.
CollaborationBryony, Sue and Julie also have their own story totell… How did the three of them end up in thathospitality suite that Tuesday night? Well, believeit or not, they didn’t know each other beforemeeting at the NCURA conference. Bryony worksat the University of Melbourne, Sue at the Univer-sity of Queensland in Brisbane and Julie at theUniversity of New South Wales in Sydney. Theywere brought together by happenstance, or oth-erwise known as the NCURA Annual Meeting. To-gether they bonded and manoeuvred through theintimidating Annual Meeting; weaving in and outamongst 2,000 other attendees; not knowing any-one else, not knowing the environment; new tothe breadth of concurrent sessions and discussiongroups, but carrying a common thread. Theywere hungry for professional development oppor-tunities - for themselves and for their Australianconstituents that had the foresight to invest in theirtravel to the US. They were thrown together by
coincidence but walked away with an undeniablenew desire and determination to make a differ-ence for new members attending their first NCURAAnnual Meeting. They saw and experienced thevalue and opportunities that were available to theattendees of the Annual Meeting. The three newcolleagues promised to keep in touch after theNCURA conference and they did. They sought outthe opportunity to express their adventure andmake an impact on others by sharing their expe-rience and telling their story as guests in the JohnsHopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health blogin the three-part series titled ‘Australia & The USA:So Far Yet So Close’. They didn’t stop there; theybuilt on their new collegiality and submitted anabstract for a session that would tell their tales,to be presented at the ARMS conference in Ade-laide in September 2013. Their session on “Howto Be Seen and Collaborate at an InternationalConference: How Three Aussie Girls Survived andThrived at NCURA” highlighted their experienceat NCURA and provided advice and tips and tricksfor other colleagues to attend an internationalconference. Were they nervous? Yes. Did theyhave reservations about presenting together forthe first time? Yes. Did they knock it out of thepark? Yes. The audience was engaged, enthralledand extremely envious of the story told by the oth-erwise three nomadic research administrators,brought together by fate, and their future sealed
by their desire to cease the momentand take advantage of the opportunityto grow professionally, shoot beyondtheir normal comfort level and sharetheir experiences with the hopes thatothers will make that first move…reach out to someone new! Makethat first gesture, have the confidenceto seek out others, build your ownpersonal network.
ConnectingIn our journey, we learned that inorder to facilitate and enable soundresearch that will impact society as awhole, we need to be supporting ourresearchers to the fullest extent possi-ble. As such, we as research adminis-trators need to establish relationshipsthat will encourage, empower and en-hance our ability to work, together in
7 Steps to ExpandYour Network
27
a more global, cohesive, and inviting environ-ment. Engagement with research administratorsthrough our sister society networks provides aplatform to share best practices andapproaches to research best practiceson a global scale.
We brainstormed seven steps that canhelp to expand your network and po-tentially develop new collaborations.These steps are drawn from our re-cent shared experiences which beganat the 54th NCURA Annual Meetingand continue today. Enhance yourpersonal potential by reaching out to someone;emphasize your emotional intelligence by en-gaging in stimulating conversation; excel to-wards the unknown by challenging yourperceived boundaries; enhance your participa-tion by seizing the volunteer opportunities; en-courage yourself to step out of your comfortzone; enable change through collaboration; en-vision the endless possibilities that this adven-ture can produce!
PricelessChance, serendipity, fate - whatever and how-ever new connections are made, the rewardsare only as big as the drive and energy you putinto them. So, say hello to that random personat a conference, spark a discussion, enable anew futurist path… who knows you could bepresenting at next year’s conference with them!You could be establishing a fellowship exchangeprogram that will enlighten and revitalize yourentire organization!
Future CollaborationAs the saying goes, “What have you done for melately?” So we all met and have had some in-terim success stories. How do we plan on keep-ing up the momentum? Funny thing… our nextadventure is already underway and the hot airballoon is ready to launch. We are in the midstof participating in the planning for the 1st NCURAInternational Region Meeting in April 2014. Weare strategizing on how to utilize our existingnetwork to build an invigorating program andto entice participants to engage in activities out-side the meeting venue. The University of Mary-land is just a metro ride away. The DC metroarea is just a stone’s throw away... N
DECEMBER 2013
Denise Clark is the Associate Vice President for Research Administration in the Division of Research at the Uni-versity of Maryland, College Park and is responsible for providing support to the campus community’s research,creative activity, and outreach initiatives. Her responsibilities include oversight of activities for proposal preparationand submission, award negotiation and management, subaward issuance and monitoring, compliance with UniversityState and federal regulations, ethical stewardship of funds, and strategic planning. In addition Denise oversees theCompliance Office (use of humans, animal welfare, export controls, and conflict of interest). On behalf of the VicePresident for Research and Chief Research Officer, Denise is responsible for all budgetary and human resource actionswithin the Division. Denise is a Past President, Past Secretary and a recipient of the Region II Distinguished ServiceAward as well as the National Distinguished Service Award. She can be reached at [email protected]
Dr. Sue O’Brien is Senior Research Integrity Officer, Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) at The Uni-versity of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Her role is to actively promote responsible conduct of research across theuniversity as well as managing all potential complaints of research misconduct and associated investigations. Pre-viously Sue was Manager of the Sponsored Health and Biomedical Initiatives team at The University of Queenslandoverseeing pre and post award processes for all Australian granting agencies as well as international awards such asNIH prime and subawards. Sue has a Bachelor of Science and PhD in plant reproductive biology from the Universityof Melbourne. She can be reached at [email protected]
Dr. Bryony Wakefield is Director of the Research Unit, Office of the Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry andHealth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Bryony and her team focus on the strategic and operationalmanagement of research at the Faculty level. They support researchers and professional staff across the Faculty’sschools, departments and institutes in the areas of research development and funding, grant mentoring, graduateresearch, performance analysis and strategic initiatives. Bryony is the NCURA International Region Volunteer Coor-dinator and is part of the planning committee for the NCURA 1st international region meeting. In addition to her in-volvement with NCURA, Bryony is on the INORMS 2016 congress planning committee and Chair of the INORMS 2016Marketing sub-committee. Prior to working in research management Bryony worked and studied in art history andcuratorship, receiving her PhD in art history from The Australian National University in 2004. She can be reached [email protected]
Julie Ward is the Research Coordinator for the Division of Research at the University of New South Wales in Sydney,Australia. Julie is responsible for managing projects which support the strategic goals of the Division like InternationalMemorandums of Understanding and Joint PhD Programs. Julie graduated from the University of Sydney with a Bach-elor of Science majoring in Pharmacology. She can be reached at [email protected]
(L-R) Byrony Wakefield, University of Melbourne; Julie Ward, Univer-sity of New South Wales; and Sue O’Brien, University of Queenslandgather at AM55 in Washington, DC.
Denise Clark, University of Maryland, College Park, presents at theAustralasian Research Management Society (ARMS) Conference inAdelaide in September 2013.
28 NCURA Magazine
As a member-staff driven organization, the suc-cess of NCURA is a result of the time and com-mitment provided by our member volunteers.We would like to take this opportunity to recog-nize those who have dedicated countless hoursto support their colleagues and our professionalstaff by taking a leading role in furthering thegoals and the values of the organization.
Thank you to the following volunteer leaders,who are completing their service terms in 2013:
Executive Committee
Dan Nordquist, Washington State UniversityImmediate Past President (2013)
Georgette Sakumoto, University of HawaiiSecretary (2012-2013)
Standing Committee Chairs Diane Barrett, rSmart
Chair, Nominating & Leadership Development Committee (2013)
Kallie Firestone, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Chair, Professional Development Committee (2013)
Ambassador CorpsDavid Mayo, California Institute of Technology
Chair (2010-2013)
NCURA MagazineDebbie Smith, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center
Co-Editor (2010-2013)
Thomas Wilson, Rush University Medical Center Co-Editor (2010-2013)
Research Management Review (RMR)Jennifer Shambrook, St. Jude Children’sResearch Hospital
Editor (2011-2013)
Traveling Workshop FacultyDenise Clark, University of Maryland College Park
Financial Research Administration Faculty (2011-2013)
Gunta Liders, University of RochesterFundamentals Faculty (2011-2013)
Dan Nordquist, Washington State UniversityFundamentals Faculty (2011-2013)
Timothy Reuter, Stanford UniversityFinancial Research Administration Faculty (2011-2013)
Toni Shaklee, Oklahoma State UniversityFundamentals Faculty (2011-2013)
Karen Woodward Massey, Harvard University Departmental Research Administration Faculty (2011-2013)
Kathy Young, Illinois State University, EmeritusFundamentals Faculty (2013)
NCURA would also like to thank ALL of ourvolunteers, who have dedicated time to plan,present and assist in the execution of ourconferences; contribute to the educationalresources provided to our members; fosterprofessional networking and knowledgeexchange; and help the NCURA communityexpand its reach beyond national borders.
Thanks to Our Outgoing Volunteer Leaders!
Dan Nordquist Georgette Sakumoto Diane Barrett Kallie Firestone David Mayo Debbie Smith Thomas Wilson
Jennifer Shambrook Denise Clark Gunta Liders Timothy Reuter Toni Shaklee Karen Woodward Massey Kathy Young
If you are interested in becoming more involved with your professional association, visit NCURA’s Volunteer Centralhttp://collaborate.ncura.edu/NCURA/VolunteerOpportunities to learn more about available volunteer opportunities.
Please contact Alissa Brower, Manager, National Volunteer Programs for more information at [email protected] or by calling 202.466.3894.
29
Robert Redford starred in the 1998movie “The Horse Whisperer.” A TVshow called “Dog Whisperer” starredCesar Millan on the NatGeo Wild Chan-nel. The basis of both shows is the ideaof a human being who is somehow ableto communicate with a creature of an-other species, someone who can tran-scend the limitations of language andculture that are usually barriers to un-derstanding and collaboration. In somereligious traditions, the word ‘whis-perer’ has a bad connotation, as a ru-mormonger who spreads discordamong a group. In the Free Dictionary, athttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/whisperer thesecond definition of the verb “whisper” is “tospeak quietly and privately, as by way of gossip, slander, or intrigue.” Ifwe disregard the negative connotation, we see it is the quiet nature of awhisper that makes a horse or dog whisperer mysterious. The communi-cation is offered between the person and the beast privately, not broad-cast in a way that can be easily observed and studied by a group.
Am I stretching the analogy? As a Research Administrator (RA), I am notcomparing Faculty and/or Principal Investigators (PIs) to horses anddogs, nor suggesting they are beasts, creatures, or in any way non-human.I’m not! I am saying there are differences in language and culture betweenRAs and PIs that can be barriers to understanding and collaboration. Anytime two or more clearly identified groups work together, the danger ex-ists that a ‘we/they’ or ‘us/them’ dichotomy will develop. Cultural differ-ences reinforce the dichotomy and, if not acknowledged and defused,must be dealt with again and again in the course of continuing efforts be-tween the groups. I propose we address those barriers in a new way, andtake on the task of becoming ‘PI Whisperers.’
Some (very) generalized differences between RAs and PIs may include:spoken language, academic discipline, demographics, and career phase.Add to these the variables of personal temperaments, and there is often a
disconnect between what thePI wants to do and what theRA believes to be either possi-ble and/or in their institution’sbest interest. Don’t forget tofactor in the level of experi-ence with research adminis-tration and deadlines! A PIWhisperer does not attempt tochange the nature or require-ments of the PI, just as an ani-mal Whisperer does not ask a
dog or horse to act in an unnaturalway. Rather, the PI Whisperer seeks alevel of communication to let the PIknow they are valued and understoodjust as they are, even as some ambi-tious mutual goal is proposed. And thePI Whisperer recognizes the PI as anindividual, not just one of the herd,
and seeks to build a relationship on that basis.
This is a brief introduction to how to become a PI Whisperer. There aremany roads to wisdom, and the journey is long! Here are four suggestionsfor approaches I have found useful.
1. Check your ego…at the door, before you send an email, when you an-swer the phone. Making the effort to present oneself as non-threaten-ing can be surprisingly effective. It can be useful in negotiation andmay also disarm and soothe someone expecting you to present an ad-versarial stance. I learned this while working as a defense contractoryears ago and found it to be one of the most transferable skills Ibrought with me when I moved to an academic setting. Surprised?Think about the similarities between a military administrator (accus-tomed to winning the day through strategy or intimidation through po-sition), and a tenured academic (whose reputation is built onrigorously defending ideas developed over a long career).
DECEMBER 2013
PI
Becoming a PI WhispererBy Betsy Foushee
PATHWAYSVolunteer PathwaysNCURA has identified three distinct volunteerpathways for its members to get involved – pre-senter, leadership and volunteer at the regionaland/or national level. “Pathways” is intended toinspire and inform members on how to engageNCURA as a volunteer in any or all of these op-portunities. To get involved visithttp://collaborate.ncura.edu/VolunteerOpportunities
Working my way
through college at Col-
orado State University, I
saw the kind of work
being done by Contracts
and Grants Administra-
tors in our Office of
Sponsored Programs. I
was so excited to be offered a position in
that office not long after graduating. My
mentor, the Assistant Vice President for Re-
search, stopped by my desk one day and told
me he had volunteered me for an officer po-
sition in Region VII. He encouraged me to
get more involved in NCURA, especially at
the Regional level. His small kindness
launched me on the Leadership Pathway.
NCURA membership, and active participation
at the National and Regional levels, was to
become one of the most important relation-
ships of my career. NCURA became my chief
means of professional and leadership devel-
opment, and its members a network of val-
ued friends and colleagues. Find your
Pathway. Perhaps more importantly, help
someone else find theirs.
Kathi Delehoy is the Senior Associate Vice President forResearch Administration at Colorado State University.She can be reached at [email protected]
NCURA
30 NCURA Magazine
2. Assume the appropriate role. At this moment, with this person, are you a muse,mentor, editor, or conscience? You know you are the subject matter expert; theother person may not know that, or may be focused on some substantially differ-ent subject matter. Has a PI ever presented you with a grant application that is acompletely inappropriate mess? I do acknowledge there are times when the onlyreaction that makes sense is to push it back across the table and refuse to takeownership. But usually the mess will not ever be transformed into a successfulproposal without your skills. And to make that happen, you need to elicit infor-mation from the PI about their vision for the work. What do they see where yousee only chaos? Where is the nugget of innovation that can be mined for organi-zation? How can you illuminate the idea to showcase your PI’s expertise andstructure the idea in a way that will beg for funding? You may need to wear sev-eral hats during the proposal development process, and the fit of each one willdepend on your dedication to communication.
3. Look for a way to make a connection. It has to be personal; it doesn’t have to beforever. Find something about the person, the project, the agency, that you canrespond to in a positive, encouraging way. What can you admire or complimentto show the PI you are engaged in their work or with them? Never forget theirwork is deeply personal to them, as yours is to you. Any compliment, howeversmall, must be sincere. If all you can manage is that they wear beautiful shoes,then start there. Maybe their office has a great view, or you notice they alwayswear two watches. Most PIs (like most people) are interesting and engaging tobegin with, and you will be able to connect quickly. But as a PI Whisperer, theeffectiveness of your work as an RA will positively reflect the nature and authen-ticity of your connection to the PI.
4. Manage the mission. You know what you need to accomplish; how can you allo-cate resources to get the best result possible? What is the timeline? How manypeople/regulations/agencies need to be involved? As an RA, you have the knowl-edge and expertise to focus your interactions with the PI to get great results. Al-ways remember that our profession exists to facilitate research and thatresearch is performed by people. Therefore, effective Research Administrationwill always require a strong personal component. The interactions of a PI withan RA influence the PI’s perception of the entire research experience and mayleave the PI feeling either empowered or misunderstood, hopeful or bitter.
The PI Whisperer, in the role of research facilitator, embodies a quote from Sin-clair Lewis’ Arrowsmith, the story of a medical researcher: ‘You see, by havingother people do the vulgar things for you, it saves your own energy for the thingsthat only you can do.’
When I was considering how to present these ideas, I thought it would be fun toproduce an acronym. I like acronyms; I find them both useful and fun. So I castsentences and arranged paragraphs to produce the word ‘CALM,’ a sense ofwhich is often missing when working with PIs. With a little re-arrangement, youcould just as easily spell ‘CLAM,’ if you prefer. Or for you DOD types, how about‘M-LAC?’ In any order you choose, I hope my suggestions are helpful to you. Andin recognition of our collective and evolving expertise, I welcome any comments,suggestions, or other techniques you care to offer in support of our quest to be-come ‘PI Whisperers.’ N
Elizabeth C. Foushee, MPA, CRA/CPRA, is Grant Officer/Writer atTidewater Community College in Norfolk, VA. Betsy works with faculty andstaff in the Arts and Humanities, Business, Career and Technical Education,and Workforce Development areas. Her sponsored program responsibilitiesinclude pre-award, post-award, and compliance. Elizabeth can be reached [email protected]
31
University of Washington (UW) doctoral studentHawkeye King walked upstairs to get coffee on anordinary spring morning in 2012. Blake Han-naford, his adviser and a UW electrical engineer-ing professor, was ahead of him in line. “Did youhear about the Hollywood thing?” Hannafordasked. King recalls saying, “No, but I’m in.”Hannaford went on to explain that a director fromthe movie “Ender’s Game” had contacted the UWBioRobotics Laboratory to see about using thelab’s Raven II surgical robot on the movie set.
That’s when King almost dropped his coffee.
“‘Ender’s Game’ is one of those iconic sci-fibooks,” King explained. “When we got back to
the lab and told people, everyone’s jaw collec-tively dropped.”
The movie “Ender’s Game,” starring HarrisonFord and Asa Butterfield and directed by GavinHood, is based on the 1980s military science-fic-tion novel by Orson Scott Card. The movie opensNov. 1 in theaters across the country.
Within a month of getting the call, King and then-UW bioengineering doctoral student Lee Whitepacked up their lab’s surgical robot and flew toNew Orleans. The students would be the sole op-erators of the robot during filming, and they alsoneeded time to prepare its exterior to look lesslike a lab machine. The students helped to decide
how the robot would operate to make it look asrealistic as possible, King said.
“We were really part of the creative process of get-ting the robot on the set,” he said.
Less than a week later, they were filming on themovie set, a New Orleans NASA facility that buildsrockets. King and White sat just off-set behind acurtain, where they used several computer mon-itors and controllers to move the robot’s fourarms as it simulated brain surgery on one of thelead characters. The students ran the robot formore than 14 hours, and King still remembersfeeling an intense pressure to perform. A day offilming is astronomically expensive, he explained,
Cool Research Project Spotlight
UW Surgical Robot Featured in 2013 Movie ‘Ender’s Game’By Michelle Ma
DECEMBER 2013
All photographs courtesy of University of Washington
A close-up shoot of the UW’s Raven II robot as it simulates brain surgery on actor Moisés Arias during the filming of “Ender’s Game.
32 NCURA Magazine
and each minute on the set counts, espe-cially when producers, actors, directors,movie backers – and even caterers – are allkeenly watching.
“We were petrified that something would break,that the robot would screw up,” King said. “Every-thing had to be working perfectly from 8 a.m. to10 p.m. on the set.”
At one point, King and White, now a medical stu-dent at Stanford University, controlled the robotduring a close-up shoot. For several minutes,everyone watched as the students maneuvered therobot’s arms around and behind the actor’s head.
King remembers “sweating bullets” and having toignore swarms of Louisiana mosquitos attackinghis legs and arms as he worked.
In a scene around the movie’s 58-minute mark,Bonzo Madrid, one of the main characters who isplayed by actor Moisés Arias, was critically injuredand suffered brain trauma after a fight with EnderWiggin at the battle school. The UW robot simu-lates opening Bonzo’s skull to operate on hisbrain. The scene deviates from the book’s plot,
King said, and nearly all of the main charactersare present.
King and White used a nonverbal signaling systemto communicate as they operated the robot in tan-dem. It takes two people to move all four of therobot’s arms. The robot’s hands and wrists stayedlocked in place and out of sight during filming,because those components are unrealisticallylarge to simulate fine-tuned brain surgery. Therobot’s hands were hidden behind Arias’ head
Above: On the movie set with the University ofWashington’s Raven II surgical robot. From leftto right: Hawkeye King, director Gavin Hood,Harrison Ford, robotics expert Joanne Pranskyand Lee White.
Right: UW students Hawkeye King, left, and LeeWhite operate the robot seen in “Ender’s Game.”It takes two people to move the robot’s fourarms. The students watched several camerasand used nonverbal signals to communicatewith each other during the shoot.
33
and the actor held an emergency “off” button topress in case of a close call.
After the close-up shoot and more than 14 hoursof operating, nothing broke or malfunctioned. “Atthe end of the day, I asked the props director howwe did,” King recalls with a laugh. “He said, ‘Letme put it this way, if they didn’t like it, it wouldn’tget a close-up.’”
Hannaford’s lab developed the first Raven surgi-cal robot about 10 years ago after the U.S. Armyexpressed interest in technology for remote med-ical care. A next-generation Raven II was builtthrough National Science Foundation fundingand collaboration with Jacob Rosen of Universityof California, Santa Cruz, and sent to seven re-
search universities, including the UW. This pastsummer five more universities purchased robotsfor research. Hannaford and Rosen recentlyspun out a company called Applied Dexterity tobuild future robots.
The Raven robots aren’t yet used in clinics for sur-gery, but that is the eventual goal, he said. Univer-sities are mainly using them to design and test newhardware and software for tele- surgery proce-
dures. The robots are designed to have state-of-the-art motion control and to fit in a standard op-erating room. A similar robot called the da Vinciis currently used to perform minimally invasiveprocedures such as appendix, gallbladder andovarian cyst removals.
After a week of hanging out with the movie’sprops team, exploring New Orleans and evenjoking around with Harrison Ford, the UW stu-dents returned to campus, where they had to staytight-lipped about their robot’s stardom for morethan a year. For King, who plans to graduate thisyear and has spent his entire doctorate workingon the surgical robot, it’s a memorable way tofinish his degree.
“It was a really fantastic experience,” he said.
For more information, contact King at [email protected] or 206-697-3955, and Hannaford at [email protected] or 206-412-0182. If you want to share a “cool”project idea, please email Danielle Anthony [email protected] N
DECEMBER 2013
ReferencesMa, Michelle (2013, November 1). UW surgical robot featured in 2013 movie ‘Ender’s Game’. Retrieved November
6, 2013 with permission from University of Washington.Original article at:
http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/11/01/uw-surgical-robot-featured-in-2013-movie-enders-game
Actors Asa Butter-field and HarrisonFord during thefilming of a scenefrom “Ender’sGame.” The UWrobot can be seenon the left.
The Raven II surgical robot.
“For many years, NCURA has been my professional family. Just like my own family,my NCURA family has provided me with wisdom from elders, values from mentors,and playfulness from colleagues. I can think of no better way to support my profes-sional family to grow and succeed than by contributing to the NCURA EducationScholarship Fund.”
Peggy S. Lowry, Program Manager, NCURA Peer ReviewNational Council of University Research Administrators
“I gave to the NCURA Education Scholarship Fund because I believe in the value ofthe professional development offered by NCURA. It is important to me that othershave the opportunities I have been afforded. I want to help grow, support and nurturethe profession of research administration.”
Kris Monahan, Ph.D.,Director of Sponsored Research & Programs, Providence College
“NCURA has been a vital resource for me both professionally and personally for overtwenty years. I have been able to stay current on the ever changing landscape of re-search administration through multiple venues that NCURA offers – in person confer-ences, YouTube Tuesdays, printed materials and, most importantly, personal contactwith colleagues in our field. Coming from a smaller institution with the next universitymore than ninety miles away, NCURA has been a lifeline. The establishment of the Ed-ucation Scholarship will continue to serve NCURA and our members through profes-sional development support and opportunities to meet and share information withcolleagues. NCURA is truly family – there’s always someone willing to help with ques-tions and issues.”
Pamela B. Whitlock, MBA, CRAEducational Consultant and Director, Office of Sponsored Programs, UNC Wilmington, Emeritus
NCURA EducationScholarship Fund
Give today!
Why I gave to the NCURA Education Scholarship Fund
NCURA received a generous gift from Jerry Fife, an NCURA past president from VanderbiltUniversity, to provide financial assistance to support continuing educational and profes-sional development needs for NCURA members. A taskforce is hard at work developingbusiness and marketing plans for this new initiative. NCURA has been challenged to raise$50,000 in matching funds by 2021. Has NCURA made a difference in your profes-sional life? Do you want others to have the opportunity to receive professionaldevelopment? Can you help us meet our goal of $50K by 2021?
▼Donate online at
http://www.ncura.edu/content/misc/edu_scholarship_fund.phpor use the enclosed pre-addressed envelope to make your tax-
deductible donation TODAY.
We need your help. Even a little makes a difference.
34 NCURA Magazine
36 NCURA Magazine
AUB BackgroundThe American University of Beirut (AUB), foundedin 1866, is a private, non-sectarian, co-educa-tional university, with 700 faculty and a studentpopulation of around 8,000. AUB is accredited bythe US Middle States Accrediting Commission, andit offers 120 programs leading to the Bachelor’s,Master’s, M.D., and Ph.D. degrees. Since its es-tablishment in 1867, the Faculty of Medicine atAUB has trained generations of medical studentsand physicians - over 4,000 to date. The Facultyof Medicine and the American University of BeirutMedical Center (AUBMC) are committed to edu-cating and training the best physicians and bio-medical researchers, to providing qualitycost-effective patient care, and to performing pre-mier clinical research.
NIH’s Fogarty Center – Assistingthe Development of ClinicalResearch in InternationalUniversitiesThe emphasis and outreach of the Fogarty Inter-national Center (“Fogarty”), a component of theNational Institutes of Health (NIH ), is improvingglobal health. Nearly 25% of Fogarty awards aremade directly to robust research institutions inthe developing world. The remaining grants sup-port academics at U.S. institutions that collaboratewith colleagues abroad. The Division of Interna-tional Training and Research oversees researchgrants, training grants and fellowship programsin more than 100 countries.
In 2010, Fogarty issued a Request for Applications(RFA) to address chronic, non-communicablediseases (NCDs) and disorders across the lifespan
through collaborative research training betweeninstitutions in the U.S. and low- and middle-in-come countries. Unfortunately, despite the highprevalence rates of NCDs and their risk factors inthe Middle East North Africa (MENA) region, thecapacity to conduct the needed research to assessand influence their determinants is very limited.Consequently, the RFA was a “perfect fit” for AUBand the Faculty of Medicine’s vision for enhancedclinical and translational research training andsustainably strengthening research capacity in allhealth science areas at AUB. Principal Investigator(PI) Dr. Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan and her AUB col-leagues seized on the opportunity and flexibilityof the Fogarty RFA and proposed to establish thefirst training grant in the region. Faculty leader-ship at AUB invited colleagues at the Harvard Med-ical School and the Harvard School of PublicHealth to help shape a new Masters in Clinical Re-
This article describes curriculum development and teaching of a Research Ethics and Responsible Conductof Research course as a core component of a National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Centerresearch training grant awarded to the American University of Beirut in September 2012.
Developing an International ‘Responsible Conduct of ResearchProgram’ for Clinical ResearchersBy Mary Ellen Sheridan, Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan, and Thalia Arawi
37DECEMBER 2013
search degree program emphasizing researchskill development for improved patient care andresearch studies in NCD. The Scholars in HeAlthResearch Program (abbreviated as ‘SHARP’) atAUB establishes a novel curriculum and trainingvehicle to generate the human capital required toconduct general NCD-related research and to in-vestigate specifically those NCDs with the greatestburden on Lebanon and the MENA region (for ex-ample, obesity and overweight, metabolic syn-drome, diabetes and cardiovascular disorders,and hypovitaminosis D [vitamin D deficiency]).In September 2012, Fogarty awarded AUB a four-year training grant of $863,000.
Commitment to Research Ethicsthrough SHARP Bioethics/RCRCourse (SHARP 315)From the earliest stages of developing the SHARPcurriculum, leaders envisioned a comprehensivebioethics and Responsible Conduct of Research(RCR) course. Dr. El-Hajj Fuleihan and consultantDr. Mary Ellen Sheridan, who met in 2009 at aresearch compliance workshop sponsored byAUB’s Office of Grants and Contracts, collaboratedduring 2010 to improve the human research in-frastructure at AUB. Together, they articulated aninstitutional Human Research Protection Program(HRPP) and improved the University’s Institu-tional Review Board (IRB) policies and practices.Later, Dr. El-Hajj Fuleihan, Dr. Thalia Arawi,Founding Director of the Salim El-Hoss Bioethicsand Professionalism Program at the AUB’s Facultyof Medicine and its medical center, and Dr. Sheri-dan worked together to enhance NIH’s RCR train-ing grant requirement and AUB’s HRPP, in anemphatic statement of AUB’s commitment to con-ducting research at the highest standard of ethicalbehavior. As a result, a large component of RCRis delivered through Research Ethics (SHARP315), an intensive three-week summer coursecomprising of nine lecture sessions. It is comple-mented by the delivery of additional instruction inAdvanced Research Ethics (SHARP 500) through-out the ensuing fall and spring terms (as part ofthe Longitudinal Seminar Series,) and throughongoing “Ethics Matters” lectures and confer-ences/workshops offered by the Salim El-HossBioethics and Professionalism Program.
Drs. Arawi and Sheridan collaborated closely oncurriculum development for SHARP 315. Theyagreed that the importance of articulating detailedcourse objectives from the inception of curricu-lum development could not be underestimated.Specific and tangible instructional objectives in
an RCR course were clustered as attributes ofKnowledge, Attitude and Behavior. Each attributewas more fully detailed in student learning objec-tives. Ultimately, students should be familiar withthe concept of research compliance through aframework of ethical, legal, and policy consider-ations that affect the practice of scientific re-search. Most importantly, students should knowhow to conduct and assess research from an eth-ical standpoint. The resulting course subject mat-ter is a broad spectrum covering traditionalmodules in RCR such as
• conduct of research involving human subjects
• research misconduct and fraud
• data acquisition, data management, sharingand ownership
• publication practices and responsibleauthorship, peer review
• mentor/mentee relationships
• animal welfare
• conflict of interest and commitment
• collaborative research
Two factors are noteworthy in the developmentof course content. To begin with, reflecting thegoal of the SHARP training grant to produceNCD researchers, an emphasis on ethical be-havior in human research and the importantrole of the IRB was paramount. Secondly, theidentification of appropriate educational re-sources and leads for relevant course contentwas greatly facilitated by extensive Internetsearches. Federal agencies such as the Officeof Research Integrity and the Office of HumanResearch Protections provide invaluable linksfor developing educational programs. Web sitesfrom leading U.S. Translational Research Cen-ters are rich resources for institutional policiesand practices, case studies, RCR guidelines, andpostings of course materials. Reviews of thesematerials greatly informed the SHARP 315 cur-riculum and facilitated refinement of the RCRunits into a sequence of topics and aspects ofconduct most relevant for clinical research.
Ultimately, SHARP 315 was team taught under Dr.Arawi’s leadership with the involvement of AUBfaculty, the IRB Vice Chair, the IRB Administratorand Dr. Sheridan. Students attended lectures, par-ticipated in discussions, analyzed case studies andwatched audio-visual materials. The course reliedon both face-to-face and web-enhanced instruc-tion via Moodle, an online learning managementsystem. A wide variety of web-accessible materials
enabled through Moodle significantly enhancedthe students’ learning opportunities and allowedcourse leaders to make the most efficient use ofstudent and faculty time.
SHARP 315 enrolled its first class of 23 studentsin the summer of 2013. The class included severalfeatures that merit special mention. First, it con-vened a mock IRB session that was a great suc-cess. Trainees learned about preparing aprotocol, role playing as members of the IRB andengaging in the dynamics of a review board. Theimpact of the session was maximized by its timing,following a four-unit sequence focused on clinicalresearch. The sequence included bioethical his-tory, human subject research policies and regu-lations, informed consent, and data acquisitionand medical records management. Thus, SHARPstudents came to the mock IRB with the necessaryrich background of human research ethical issuesand practices.
Next, thirty percent (30%) of each student’s gradewas based on a special project assignment. Work-ing in groups of about four, students were re-quired to develop a user-friendly Introduction toClinical Research pamphlet that could be usedin subject-recruitment settings. The studentgroups prepared a rich and diverse array ofbrochures that reflected their awareness of re-cruitment, informed consent, and the roles andresponsibilities of researchers and subjects inclinical research.
Finally, each student group was also assigned, byrandom syllabus subject, to give a five-minutepresentation on the last instructional day. Stu-dents were given free latitude to express theirknowledge of responsible conduct of researchthrough their choice of presentation style. Withonly 36-hours’ notice, the groups did a remark-able job of applying their creative skills to pro-duce musical sketches, case studies, role-playingskits and targeted presentations on the majorpoints of ethical decision-making in clinical re-search. As a last class day event, this was bothan instructive and entertaining success. The stu-dents left SHARP 315 with a positive impressionof the significance of ethical conduct and deci-sion-making in their future research program.As one summer SHARP evaluator stated, “TheSHARP program has put me on the right track tobecoming a clinical researcher.”
Looking to the FutureThe RCR faculty and students alike have beenpleased with the RCR course; SHARP 315 was one
PATHWAYSVolunteer PathwaysNCURA has identified three distinct volunteerpathways for its members to get involved – pre-senter, leadership and volunteer at the regionaland/or national level. “Pathways” is intended toinspire and inform members on how to engageNCURA as a volunteer in any or all of these op-portunities. To get involved visithttp://collaborate.ncura.edu/VolunteerOpportunities
My first NCURA meetingscared me to death. I wasintimidated by the numberof research administratorsand the amount of knowl-edge in the room. Thatknowledge is what drewme into volunteering withNCURA. Now, it didn’t hap-pen overnight. I started out by volunteering atthe registration desk at a regional meeting. Acouple of years later, someone asked me,“What have you done lately for NCURA?” Thatdirect question definitely helped me becomemore involved. I started reaching out to othersto see if I could be included in their presenta-tions and workshops, a practice that has comefull circle as I now reach out to new membersto see if they want to be part of my presenta-tion team. Becoming involved with NCURA hasled me down a fantastic path. I’ve co-chairedPRA and FRA conferences, been on Nationaland regional meeting programs, and am nowon the Board of Directors. The exciting part isthat I reach across the U.S, in volunteering forRegion II and Region VI/VII. Not only has vol-unteering for NCURA given me countless op-portunities to grow as a research administrator,it has given me opportunities to grow person-ally, which is a “good thing.”
Dennis Paffrath is the Assistant Vice President forSponsored Programs Administration for University ofMaryland, Baltimore. He can be reached [email protected]
NCURAof the highest rated SHARP summer courses. Now that the new SHARP program hasbeen successfully launched, the PI, colleagues at AUB and the SHARP program’sTechnical Advisory Group are looking to the coming year to implement additionalcomponents of the master’s program. AUB also anticipates that it will expand thereach of the RCR experience to other regional institutions, while the recruitmentprogram for new SHARP trainees is expected to identify new and expand existingclinical research collaborations in NCD areas.
The RCR faculty attribute the success of the SHARP 315 course to a number of fac-tors, which can be taken as Points for Success for other international institutionsconsidering such a program:
• Proven collaborative working relationship among research administrators, con-sultant, and faculty colleagues at AUB and US cooperating institutions
• Continuous communication and open dialogue between consultant and PI andAUB colleagues
• Involvement of critical faculty at AUB in curriculum development
• On-site consultant participation in RCR course
• Continuing research capacity building initiatives between research administration,Drs. Sheridan and El-Hajj Fuleihan, and AUB faculty
All told, the SHARP 315 course has proven an excellent example of the opportunityfor impact that exists through international research funding when combined withstrong collaboration between faculty and research administrators. N
Mary Ellen Sheridan, Ph.D. has been a consultant for AUB on bioethics and researchethics since 2009. She retired as Associate Vice President for Research and Director of Uni-versity Research Administration at the University of Chicago in 2007. Mary Ellen is a pastpresident of NCURA and received NCURA’s Distinguished Service Award and the OutstandingAchievement in Research Administration Award. She received her Ph.D. in chemistry from theUniversity of Illinois-Chicago. Questions for her or the other authors can be directed to her [email protected]
Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan, M.D., MPH is Professor of Medicine, founding Director ofthe Calcium Metabolism and Osteoporosis Program and of the WHO Collaborating Center forMetabolic Bone Disorders, Founding and Program Director, Scholars in HeAlth Research Program,at the American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. Dr. El-Hajj Fuleihan obtained her MD de-gree from the American University of Beirut and completed her residency and fellowship at theNew England Deaconess and Brigham and Women’s Hospitals, Harvard Medical School, Boston.She received a master in Public Health from the Harvard School of Public Health and directedthe Calcium Metabolism Research Unit at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard MedicalSchool for several years prior to moving back to her Alma Mater. Dr. El-Hajj Fuleihan’s majorresearch interests revolve around, osteoporosis, hypovitaminosis D, metabolic bone disorders,calcium-sensing, and women’s health issues.
Thalia Arawi, Ph.D. is the Founding Director of the Salim El-Hoss Bioethics & Profession-alism Program at the American University Beirut Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center. Dr.Arawi is also the Clinical Bioethicist at AUBMC and the Vice Chair of the AUB Medical CenterEthics Committee. Her major interests are in the areas of non-violence, biomedical ethics andmedical education. She received her Ph.D. in Bioethics from the University of Wisconsin.
References: American University of Beirut, official website. http://www.aub.edu.lbScholar in Health Research Program (SHARP), American University of Beirut.
http://www.aub.edu.lb/sharpMoodle Open Source Course Management System, official site. https://moodle.org
38 NCURA Magazine
These are the voyages of the Starship Con-tinuing Resolution. Our mission: to ex-plore strange new CDAs, to seek out elusivecooperative grant agreements, to boldlycontract where no contracts have been ne-gotiated before.
We’ve entered the Sequester nebula. Ourfirst contract was with a Romulan vessel.This was a surprise. They are totally out oftheir territory and unfamiliar with this realmof experience as demonstrated by their beaming over a new material be-fore an MTA was in place.
The material was very strange. We suspect it is a controlled substanceunder the United Federation of Planets’ Export Administration Regula-tions. We are not sure what form it has taken. It fits in the palm ofone’s hand, is fuzzy, makes a cooing sound, and apparently is stimu-lated by a genre of ancient music known as Jazz. Obviously, we wouldhave tried to refuse the shipment until the MTA was signed, but it wastransported aboard before Central knew about it. Personally, I believethe notification process was adversely impacted because unit adminis-trators may have gotten caught up in observing its unique characteris-tics, antics, and behavior. It’s so darn cute. Unfortunately, this is acommon side-tracking tactic with some regulated materials that areprogrammed for infiltration. We must remain vigilant.
We have been negotiating a contract for months with a species withwhom we have never worked before. Our primary Universal TranslatorDevice (UTD) has had some difficulties with the language and, as a re-sult, negotiations have been slow. Perhaps it requires yet another soft-ware upgrade. This is a perpetual challenge with ORaNgE products. Iwas able to beam back a redlined version of the contract, though I hon-estly am not quite sure I understood all of the nuances and clauses con-tained in their original. From all indications, it appeared that theywere giving our PI full rights to publish outside our galaxy, yet the clos-ing argument clearly stipulated that they owned the intellectual prop-erty and required approval prior to any publication. I am concernedthat the UTD may have misinterpreted their comments. What’s more, Ihaven’t been able to get a response from the Federation General Coun-sel via any of my deep space communications. I grudgingly have re-senteverything via the antiquated shallow communication channel and amstanding-by for a response. Some days are like this. I’ve seen ancientvideo feed called YouTube Tuesdays and can only say that our ancestorsmust have been extraordinarily patient.
On a parallel note, the Nebular Council of Universal Research Administrators
(NCURA) Annual Meeting was this week and I was able to
secure a room at the Andorian Hilton! There’s
always a mad rush for rooms and I could hardly believe my good fortune. Better yet, I was able to meet some of my
colleagues from other solar systems.It’s always rewarding to finally meet inreal time after working togetherthrough the UTD, particularly sincevideo hasn’t been possible lately; lightspeed is not what it used to be.
The NCURA staff do such a terrific job atnetwork facilitation for these largemeetings. I never cease to be surprisedat the diversity and number of research
administrators. I finally met Ardhed Hadminstrr this year. We’ve beennegotiating a contract for ages and have become something akin tofriends. The interactive meeting roster, of course, knew this from theUTD feed and automatically activated NCURA sTalking app. Without it,I’m quite sure I would never have run across Ardhed. Seriously. Ardhedis of a very small species that doesn’t enlarge to human dimensions un-less an electron request is received, routed, and planetarily approved.That’s why it was so rewarding when my nametag alarm went off, themagnetic fields activated, Ardhed’s resizing was approved, and ournametags became the same color and began strobing in unison. Weshook hands, both giggling like school children.
Interestingly, NCURA meetings have maintained hand shaking as theuniform greeting method. I admit to being perpetually surprised anddelighted with the Board of Directors’ embracing a shared code of con-duct (E-NCURA AM CC-3149.3) and integrating a common greeting.Many participants don’t have earthling appendages so “hands” assume avariety of forms and some retract to unexpected . . . locations. Fasci-nating, to say the least.
As always, I attended a session on effort certification. You’d think thatafter this many centuries we would have evolved beyond this require-ment. All species agree that 100% is still 100%, no matter what planetyou live on. I didn’t recognize the presenter, though my handheld UTDindicated origin from the planet Oembee in the Uhhuh galaxy. The pre-senter emphasized the continuing need for such certification, and alsoreminded us that the Federation’s proposed universal guidance ongrants and cooperative agreements, referred to as “Beyond Super Circu-lar,” would be forthcoming any eon now. Unfortunately, no specificswere available until the Federation’s standard 999 year commenting pe-riod had ended.
Some in the audience were surprised, but not me. Yes, there are stillrelationships and communication styles that might surprise, but I am alifelong learner, a student of research administration history. Bureau-cracies are notoriously slow to change, even in 67276.1. Rather thanexhibiting any behavior that could be perceived as smug or aloof to newmembers, I simply raised my eyebrow and, to use an ancient idiom,straightened my face.
Live long and prosper, Friends. N
NCURAbly Pedantic is written by long-standing NCURA members, all under pseudonym protection.
NCURAbly Pedantic
By Ty M. Neffert, Livlonenprosser University
Star Date67276.1
39DECEMBER 2013
40 NCURA Magazine
One of the central factors impacting the successful negotiation ofinternational research agreements and collaboration is culture.Recognizing this, the International Research Collaborationsproject (“I-Group”) of the Government-University-Industry Re-search Roundtable (GUIRR) held its second workshop at the Na-tional Academy of Sciences on July 29-31, 2013. The workshop“Culture Matters: An Approach to International Research Agree-ments” brought together a broad range of U.S. Government, highereducation, and private sector participants to consider cultural di-mensions in this space. The workshop followed the very successfulJuly 2010 workshop “Examining Core Elements of InternationalResearch Collaboration: A Workshop.”
Bringing together nearly 80 participants, the workshop encom-passed four tracks and examined their relationships with culture,research, and agreements: 1) People/Human Subjects; 2) Envi-ronment and Natural Resources; 3) Science, Engineering, andManufacturing (SEM); and 4) Agriculture and Animal Issues.
NCURA members Pat Schlesinger, John Carfora, and Jim Caseymoderated plenary sessions centered on wealthy vs. poor under-developed countries, urbanization/ecological sustainability/socialresilience, and intellectual property, respectively. Participants werehighly energized, the discussions were vigorous, and participantsare looking forward to future follow-on activities. N
If you would like to further explore materials from the 2013 andthe 2010 workshops, please visithttp://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/guirr/PGA_050827#culture
A GUIRR Workshop:
Culture, InternationalResearch Agreements,and CollaborationBy James Casey
James Casey is a research manager and attorney based inSan Antonio, TX. A member of the July 2013 planning com-mittee, he co-chaired the SEM break out group and moderatedthe IP plenary. He was co-chair of the July 2010 workshop. Anattorney since 1990 and a member of NCURA since 1995, heis a member of the NCURA Board of Directors, the EducationScholarship Fund Task Force, and is the former Senior Editor
of NCURA Magazine. He teaches in the Rush University M.S. in Research Admin-istration Program. This article and any opinions present herein are solely thoseof the author and do not represent the positions of I-Group, GUIRR, or the Na-tional Academies. He can be reached at [email protected](L to R) Pat Schlesinger, UC Berkeley, Bob Hardy, COGR,
and Jim Casey, UNC – Chapel Hill
40 NCURA Magazine
1041DECEMBER 2013
IntroductionThe field of research administration is a diverseand often misunderstood profession. In manycases, people have “stumbled” into their positionsafter pursuing other careers – often with greatstories about how they entered the field. However,many Research Administrators, after findingthemselves employed in the field, remain loyal tothis unique profession despite the numerous chal-lenges faced on a daily basis. For some, the mostfrustrating aspect of the job is the fact that everychallenge seems to have a new “twist” (althoughfor some of us, this may be why we love researchadministration!). With almost thirty years of cu-mulative experience, we have compiled a top tenlist - in no particular order - of lessons learnedthat we hope will: (1) provide some guidance forthose new to the field; and (2) provide a chucklefor those more “seasoned” professionals whohave seen it all before!
1Building a rapport withsponsors, as well as with other offices on campus, can go a long way! Tony: I am sure everyone has had “that” experi-ence where a question you needed answered im-mediately was not responded to or the negotiationthat may have veered toward “contentious.” How-ever, one lesson that I have learned in this regard(thanks to the profound wisdom of DepecheMode) is that “people are people so why shouldit be, you and I should get along so awfully?” Howcan we turn these interactions around? One toolI have utilized is the regional connection. Whetherspeaking to a new faculty member or a sponsor,if they are from and/or located in the northeast –even better if New York or Long Island (where Ispent the first thirty years of my life) – I will al-ways start a conversation about the area, askabout the weather and how much things have
changed over the years, etc. I am also not abovereferencing areas where I have relatives or havevisited. It is just a simple opportunity to developa connection – even a limited one – that will helpwhen the “work” needs to be addressed. It maynot always be applicable, but it is a great startwhen the opportunity is available.
2Be careful what you ask for,because you just might get it…Tony: I cannot begin to tell you how quickly myblood runs cold when someone says, “It’s only aproposal; the chances that it will be funded any-way are not that great, so let’s just leave it as-is.”Guess what Murphy’s Law will often dictate? Yep,an award gets made with some bizarre commit-ment, budgetary line item, or proposed deliver-able that is going to require an act of Congressand/or approval of the Vatican to move forwardat the award stage. Recommendation? Treat everyproposal as if the award is anticipated and ex-pected.
3Communication – how a team approach duringnegotiations can be a benefit.Tony: Depending on your institution, negotiationswill generally be handled by a contract adminis-trator/negotiator within the central pre-award of-fice. This is how it is handled at my institution.However, a negotiation should not start with asponsor until all parties “internal” to the arrange-ment are on the same page. This may (should)include the pre-award individual (or team), thePrincipal Investigator (PI), department or col-lege-level administrator, technology transfer offi-cer, and post-award representative (if specificissues to be negotiated are related to post-awardactivities and/or responsibilities). It is detrimentalto a negotiation to draw a line in the sand relatedto certain terms and conditions, only to find out
that someone else on the “team” had informedthe sponsor that this would not be a problem. Itis equally troubling to hear the phrase, “Well, ourunderstanding is that the investigator has alreadystarted work and we want to make sure that weare able to cover his expenses.” I’ve experiencedboth scenarios in the past, and I can tell you thatthe amount of tap dancing I had to do would havequalified me for Dancing with the Stars!
4Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime!Tony: This is one area where I still have to learnto take my own advice. When I served as a con-tract administrator, I had some faculty who pre-ferred to work through me to submit their finalreports through Fastlane – not at all necessary(since the module for reports was an investigatorfunction), but something they preferred to do. Forsome, this may be within your job description; forour office, it is nice to do, just above and beyondthe normal call of duty. The problem? The inves-tigators would send me a word document con-taining all the wonderful information that neededto be put into the report and them come to my of-fice to sit with me and watch as I uploaded eachcomponent. This was great except for the fact thatthese investigators never actually gained the ex-perience of submitting the report, and when I waspromoted, the incoming contract administratorinherited a few “needy” individuals. I am proudto say, he has been teaching them to fish!
5Education, Education, Education (and the importance of….).Tony: This is one that I have touted for a long time,and clearly after years of stating that we neededto be much more proactive in our education pro-grams, I became tasked with doing just that (re-
Research Administration 101:
A Top Ten List of Lessons LearnedBy Robyn Remotigue and Anthony Ventimiglia
42 NCURA Magazine
member, be careful what you ask for – see #2above….). However, it is a topic and area that Ifeel does get overlooked because of all the otherdeadlines, compliance requirements and emer-gencies that consume any given day. Even if it isas simple as a monthly “tip” or article that youcan make available or quarterly brown bag ses-sion (or better yet, providing snacks is always agreat draw), my advice is to start small but be rel-evant. Determine the high priority areas that needattention immediately and move forward fromthere. Some of the programs/activities that wehave initiated at Auburn include a departmentalcertification course and (COMPASS); a numberof brown bag sessions, proposal developmentworkshops (held in conjunction with new facultyorientation and an annual research week event);and monthly informal lunches with new faculty.
6The tenuous balance between customer service andinstitutional responsibility. Robyn: When you talk with any university spon-sored programs administrator, a common themeseems to be providing the best customer service
for their PIs. It is more comfortable to be likedand respected by our PIs than to be considered“the police.” More importantly, administratorsneed to develop a balance between providinggreat customer service and providing informationto PIs about their responsibilities. I always re-member that when I am a customer, I don’t wantto be told what I can’t do. Instead, I want to betold what I can do. I strive to live by this daily inworking with PIs, keeping in mind that compli-ance is necessary but, at the same time, lettingthem know what I can do for them. This helps tostrike a balance between customer service andbeing responsible.
7Who signs what? Understanding the hierarchy of signature authority.Robyn: An administrator should understand whohas signature authority at their institution as wellas the chain of signatures that might be required.Educating your PI about this signature “chain ofcommand” is also important so they know whatis required. It is also critical to educate your PIthat with signing comes a certain amount of re-
sponsibility. Educating your PI will help avoid anymajor problems they might encounter shouldthey decide to sign on behalf of the institution; itwill also go a long way toward helping to preventthem from signing on behalf of the institution inthe first place.
8If you don’t understandsomething during a negotiationprocess, DO NOT be afraid to ask the contract negotiator (or discuss with a colleague). Robyn: Reviewing the plethora of documentationthat comes with a contract can be overwhelming.It is important to remember that, no matter howlong you have been in this business, when indoubt you should always ask the contracting offi-cer (CO). Asking for points of clarification duringthe process can also help strengthen your rela-tionship with the CO. In most cases, you will gaintheir respect because they will know you are try-ing to do the right thing. Remember, you alsoneed to be able to explain to your PI, or otherson campus, any compliance issues so it would beprudent to obtain clarification on the front end.
Research Administration Memes Facebook Page — https://www.facebook.com/ResearchAdministrationMemes Research Administration Memes Twitter Page — https://twitter.com/ResAdmMemes
Stewe Bekk’s Desk
It's all about American funding at the mo-ment – DoD, NIH, Templeton, you name it.Notably, one of our first NIH proposals isabout to go out so we are tying up lots ofloose ends. I remember when I first enteredinto this “new world” of calls, having al-ready had extensive experience with Euro-pean ones, I thought: What additionalthings could we be asked to handle that wehave not already managed? Well, it turnsout - a lot. FCOI, sub-awards, ERA Com-mons, A133-audit requirements, are just afew of our new discoveries. It is fitting that Ishould bring up these things here since it isin large part NCURA´s “fault” that I´m nowfacing these issues! Attending one of yourNIH-101 courses in New Orleans this Marchreally helped us get active in this area. Butwe're getting there and hopefully thesetypical “growing pains” will go away oncewe have a few more proposals behind us.
Stewe Bekk is the International Project Managerfor ICFO – The Institute of Photonic Sciences —in Barcelona, Spain.
DESKWhat’s on my
43DECEMBER 2013
9Get involved if a PI/faculty member tells you that they are getting a no-cost extension on a project that is about to expire.Robyn: If a PI’s project is about to expire and they tell you the sponsor is grantingthem a no-cost extension to continue their work, get involved—especially whenthe PI also requests that the project account remain open. Ask the PI to provideyou with any documentation or email as evidence that the sponsor is granting ano-cost extension. It would also be prudent for you to email the sponsor askingfor any current updates on the project. You want to trust the PI, but you also don’twant them getting into a bind with their project.
10Do not dodge or avoid that troublesome PI or the one that you consider to be a pain in your day. Be proactive… Robyn: Every research administrator has a PI they would like to avoid becausethey either don’t follow the instructions, desire to be a “Lone Ranger,” or theyare quite frankly a “pain” to work with during the proposal process. It may be aPI who never seems to be grateful for administrative assistance. There may betimes that you would like to send your phone directly to voice mail, or wish thatyou were experiencing email problems. You simply want to avoid this person be-cause they seem to wreck your day. In reality, it is much easier to be proactiveand reach out to assist those “difficult” PIs who are working on proposals. Whenyou are proactive, you are seeking to prevent any potential problems or hurdlesbefore they arise or become a greater problem. Sometimes it may be necessaryto step out of your comfort zone or go out of your way to get involved in helpingthe PI. It really takes more energy to avoid a PI than it does to be proactive. Aproactive administrator reflects a positive attitude. Perhaps your positive attitudeand energy will rub off on your PI and help to reverse what would otherwise havebeen an unpleasant situation.
SummaryIt is our hope that this list of lessons learned provides you with some useful in-formation that you can apply to your daily routine – or at the very least, providea moment of levity during a hectic day! You might even consider keeping this listhandy as a reminder of lessons learned by two research administrators who,though they may not have seen it all, have experienced enough to share this advicewith you. N
Robyn Remotigue is Research Manager, Dean of the School of PublicHealth at University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth. Shehas been in the field of research administration since 1994. She is a grad-uate of the 2012 NCURA Executive Leadership Program and 2010 NCURALeadership Development Institute. She is actively involved with NCURA, serv-ing on the Professional Development Committee and is Chair of the PDC So-cial Media Subcommittee. In addition, she has volunteered in various
capacities at the regional level. Robyn can be reached at [email protected]
Anthony (Tony) F. Ventimiglia is the Associate Director for Educa-tion and Communication in the Auburn University Office of SponsoredPrograms where his responsibilities include the development and imple-mentation of education programs for both faculty and staff. Tony hasbeen working in research administration since 1999 and has volunteeredin various capacities at both the regional and national level. He is a grad-uate of the 2005 class of the NCURA Leadership Development Institute and
currently serves on the NCURA Board of Directors. Tony can be reached [email protected]
44 NCURA Magazine
By Paul J. Millis
45
Introduction Smartphones are vulnerable to attack. They runsoftware like a PC but in an unsecured environ-ment. Portability and connectivity provide capa-bilities an attacker can exploit. As functionalityexpands, threats grow.
Smartphones are a valued business tool. Theissue is not whether to use smartphones for busi-ness but how to use smartphones securely forbusiness. The key is creating a secure environ-ment by providing the best-controlled implemen-tation of smartphone technology consistent withyour organization’s risk tolerance.
Discussion Opportunity: “(Why do you robbanks, Willie? Because that’s where the money is.)”According to the UN, there are 6 billion mobilephone subscriptions in the world; nearly one foreach of the 7 billion people (BBC, 2012), creatingan attractive target for cyber criminals. This hascaused attackers to target smartphones for the datathey contain and as a way to gain access to an or-ganization’s network. The threat universe is daunt-ing. As the number of Internet-enabled handhelddevices continues to grow, web-based threats willcontinue to grow in number and sophistication.
MalwareThere were 6 times as many cyber-attacks on mo-bile phones as there were during the previousyear (McAfee, 2013). Malware takes advantage ofusers’ interest in popular applications. Some mal-ware are legitimate pieces of software that are re-verse engineered with malicious code injectedprior to re-publishing. Hackers prey on useremotions like greed and fear by offering free ver-sions of popular apps or bogus security apps thatinclude dangerous code. Therefore, users shouldbe trained to be wary and not assume that appsare legitimate – even security apps. Users need tocheck sellers and read reviews prior to download-ing software. Organizations need to be aware ofwho controls which apps can be downloaded.
AttackersPeople who attack other people’s systems are in-creasingly professionals. Their minions are the“script kiddies” who use tools written by moreexperienced attackers to break into computersystems and smartphones. These attackers aredangerous because of what your phone repre-
sents: “Many thieves . . . think of your smart-phone as an effective key to unlock your personalwealth and hijack your company’s sensitive data”(Sileo, 2012).
UsersCareless or untrained users are the weakest linkin the security chain. Carelessness usually takesthe form of lost phones or downloading maliciousapps. Untrained users are more the result of or-ganizational inaction, but the users themselvesalso contribute to this problem.
“People have long favored functionality over se-curity and are unwilling to pay the price and in-convenience incurred by security schemes” (Guo,et al., 2004).
When it comes to smartphones, users create sig-nificant risk. Despite the talk of sophisticatedmalware and ingenious attackers, losing thephone is the top concern about any mobile de-vice. Data are most often harvested from phonesthat are lost or stolen because the devices are notpassword protected or encrypted.
When users are calling, texting, and surfing theycan be subject to “shoulder surfing,” which isusing direct observation techniques, such aslooking over someone’s shoulder, to get infor-mation (WikiPedia). Shoulder surfing is partic-ularly effective in crowded places such asairports and restaurants.
High-profile users are the most difficult to say“no” to when they want to bring in the newest,shiniest toys. Organizations are often forced tosupport devices and technologies before an effec-tive approach to security has coalesced. Hackersknow this and exploit those users with the mostto lose. It is vital that enterprise security extendto high-profile users.
BYODSecurity is hard. Security over devices you don’town is even harder. The blending of personal andwork time caused by ubiquitous access has forcedorganizations to support more types of devicesthan ever before and to expand significantly theperimeter to be defended. The ability to use tech-nology in a business setting must be consistentwith user needs. Smartphones are no exception.When people bring their own devices to work, re-stricting access is a much more difficult problem
Users who bring their own devices to work in-crease the risk associated with smartphones and
tablets. Relying upon user configuration is alwaysrisky and when the user is the administrator of adevice, they can misconfigure it or weaken secureconfigurations by changing settings.
SmartphonesSmartphones represent a critical attack vector.Security professionals must protect phones fromover-the-network intrusions from attackers whilesecuring data against access if the device is lostor stolen. Smartphones are no less vulnerable todenial-of-service attacks, malware infections, andphishing attacks than an unprotected PC. Smart-phones need to be treated the same as other com-puters. This entails hardening the hardware andoperating system, use of the latest security tech-nology, and training users. Users are constantlydownloading potentially dangerous apps to theirsmartphones. Often, these smartphones do nothave antivirus protection, so the problems causedby flawed apps can propagate.
RiskHow security professionals respond to the threatsand vulnerabilities introduced by the use of smart-phones depends upon your organization’s risk tol-erance. What creates risk in this context?
• Lack of adequate policy;
• Lack of security training;
• Degradation of security throughpersonalization of settings;
• Failure to physically secure devices;
• Insecure configuration;
• Access inconsistent with user jobrequirements;
• Inappropriate data stored on the device;
• Failure to encrypt sensitive data and
• Users connecting to the network in insecure ways.
Policy provides a baseline for users and allowsthem to understand the criteria against whichtheir conduct is judged. Training helps improve
DECEMBER 2013
46 NCURA Magazine
users’ performance. If you don’t tell your userswhat you want them to do they aren’t going to doit. Personal use of smartphones may be ‘learn asyou go’ but you can’t afford that approach in abusiness context.
Organizations are more concerned with protect-ing the data on their devices than in protectingthe devices themselves. This underscores theneed for organizations to have policy that givesthem the ability to wipe devices remotely, even ifthey are privately owned. Encryption of data atrest and in transit is vital to a secure environment.
SecurityThe first step in security is to enable password-protection. This is the most important aspect ofsmartphone security. Access control is the sim-plest safeguard you can apply to any mobile de-vice. All contemporary mobile operating systemssupport power-on PINs or passwords.
Enable the ability to invoke a hard reset or datawipe on a lost or stolen mobile device. This se-curity measure can be deployed selectively andcan be used to disable business data on person-ally-owned devices. Another key to securingsmartphones is creating and enforcing a secureconfiguration, including controls that guard theconnection and smartphone against key threats.Organizations should implement security soft-ware, use strong passwords, incorporate reason-able time-outs, and check for malware.
Encryption “scrambles” the information so itcan’t be transferred and interpreted if your devicefalls into the wrong hands or gets hacked. Lostsmartphones pose serious security risks to data,but remote autolock technology, GPS tracking anduse of a strong password can help mitigate thoserisks. Autolock provides an essential security fea-ture to a mobile device by protecting the data cur-rently displayed on it. GPS tracking allows you topinpoint the location of the lost phone to facilitateretrieval of a lost phone or to alert authorities ofthe location of a stolen phone. Password protec-tion apps are available for every type of smart-
phone. A single secure password is used to pro-tect sensitive passwords, credit card data, finan-cial data, and online identities that are stored ona smartphone.
Enabling location-based services allows a built-inGPS to provide a user’s real-time location to theservice providers. This information can be usedto determine home addresses, work addresses,and daily schedules. Most smartphones allowusers to control location-based GPS features foreach individual app; permitting a user to use it fora mapping program but not social media. Suchselective usage of GPS will limit availability of sen-sitive location data like home and work locations,and current whereabouts of key employees fromthose without a need to know.
Updates and bug fixes to system software andapps help ensure that software on smartphonescontain the most recent security updates. A reg-ular update cycle is necessary and automated up-dates are better.
Policy Proper Use Policy should address personally sup-plied hardware and also needs to provide for wip-ing of devices at termination or transfer. PortableElectronic Device Policy should mandate appro-priate protection of sensitive information when itis stored, transferred to, or accessed fromportable electronic devices or removable media.Policy should require:
• Password, biometric, or similar protection;
• Sensitive information be encrypted with thestrongest encryption method practicable;
• Approval to store unencrypted sensitiveinformation;
• Measures to physically secure the device ormedia;
• Immediate reporting of lost or theft ofportable electronic devices containingsensitive information and
• Management approval for exceptions forsystems or devices not meeting the standardsof this policy.
SummaryA secure journey of a thousand miles begins with a single control. Smartphones are vulnerable to attack. Peoplewho attack other peoples’ systems are increas-ingly professionals. When it comes to smart-phones, users create significant risk. Theblending of personal and work time caused byubiquitous access has forced organizations tosupport more types of devices than ever beforeand significantly expand the perimeter to be de-fended. How security professionals respond tothe threats and vulnerabilities introduced by theuse of smartphones depends upon your organi-zation’s risk tolerance. Smartphones are no lessvulnerable to denial-of-service attacks, malwareinfections, and phishing attacks than an unpro-tected PC. Smartphones need to be treated thesame as other computers. This entails hardeningthe hardware and operating system, use of the lat-est security technology, and training users. If youplan to use smartphones in business:
• Update your policy to address smartphones.
• Protect devices with a passcode lock.
• Auto-wipe devices after a specific number offailed unlock attempts.
• Use protected configuration profiles.
• Require encryption.
• Wipe devices if they are lost or stolen.
• Auto-lock devices after periods of inactivity.
• Utilize password protection software.
• Implement continuous refresh policies.
• Minimize use of location-based services. N
ReferencesMcAfee Threats Report: Fourth Quarter 2012 (2013). Retrieved August 21, 2013, from
http://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/reports/rp-quarterly-threat-q4-2012.pdfUN: Six billion mobile phone subscriptions in the world: (October 12, 2012)Retrieved 11/05/2013 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19925506 WikiPedia (n.d.). Retrieved August 20, 2013, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_surfing_(computer_security)
Paul J. Millis, CPA, CIA, CISA,CCEP, MBA, has worked at the Uni-versity of Michigan since 1994. He isthe Senior Information TechnologyAudit Manager. He holds a BA in ac-counting and an MBA from MichiganState University. You may contact Paul
47DECEMBER 2013
In the last few years there have been cases involving fraud related to a Uni-versity Researcher’s SBIR/STTR. The researchers in some cases misrepre-sented the involvement of their respective institutions. In August of 2009,Senate hearing 111-392 was held to hear testimony related to Waste, Fraud,and Abuse in the SBIR program. We can anticipate that we will hear morefrom the federal agencies and GAO as the fraud cases continue.
The concept of the Small Business Innovation Research and Small BusinessTechnology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) Programs is to seed and potentially groomnew research to yield technology that will evidently be commercialized. Cen-tral to the STTR program is expansion of the public/private sector partner-ship to include the joint venture opportunities for small business and thenation’s premier nonprofit research institutions.
One of the cases mentioned in the senate hearing involved a former Professorat the University of Florida and Director of UF’s Innovations Nuclear SpacePower and Propulsion Institute, INSPI. In February 2009, NASA OIG andthe FBI executed Federal seizure warrants at UF as well as at the home andoffices of a NASA SBIR contactor, New Era Technology (NETECH) These war-rants were issued based on probable cause that the professor, who was aprinciple at NETECH and his family submitted multiple fraudulent SBIR pro-posals to NASA to receive maximum SBIR funding. A subsequent US attor-ney’s Office press release announced the conviction of the professor for wirefraud and producing false documents to a federal agency. According to courtdocuments, the professor and his family members set up a company,NETECH with his wife as president. The press release states that he, workingtogether with his wife, submitted fraudulent contract proposals to NASA andthe Air Force. The defendants falsely represented that NETECH would provideresearch services of scientists, engineers, and laboratory assistants, workingin a state-of-the-art analysis and data communication laboratory and thatNETECH would be collaborating with INSPI at UF.
The couple submitted contract proposals and reports to NASA and the AirForce, that claimed research and analysis had been performed by NETECHwhen in reality, the research and analysis had been taken from researchprojects, theses, and presentations of graduate and doctoral students at UFwithout their knowledge or consent. Contrary to the couple’s representations,the information provided under the contract was not performed by NETECH,but was taken from work performed at INSPI, at the UF’s Major AnalyticalInstrumentation Center (MAIC), and at a laboratory located in Russia. Thecouple also submitted fraudulent invoices and deposited the reimbursementpayments into their own accounts and into bank accounts held by their sons,only to later transfer the money back into their own accounts. University ofFlorida was unaware of the criminal conduct and cooperated fully in the in-vestigation. The professor received six months in prison followed by homeconfinement and probation.
In another highly publicized case in 2012 a former professor and researcherat Penn State ; plead guilty to multiple counts involving multiple agenciesawards; related to duplicate funding involving university and SBIR awardsto his private company; he received a 3&1/2 years prison sentence and wasordered to pay $660,000 restitution. The professor was convicted of wirefraud, money laundering and making false statements to secure grantsthrough his solely-owned company, SentechBiomed (SBIR). Count I andCount II of the indictment related to activity of his SBIR. In the application,the professor specifically represented to NIH that he would direct approxi-mately $500K of the $1.2M received to the Hershey Medical Center to con-duct clinical research on adult and infant subjects. The clinical studies/trialswere not performed and the money was never paid. Instead, the grant fundswere misappropriated, in part, for his own use. The US attorney said thatthe diverted grant money was used in part for a trip to Europe with his wife,a jaunt to Texas for a job interview and the purchase of 53 copies of text-books he’d written. Count II of the indictment charged him with makingfalse statements to the Dept. of Energy in connection with another grant asa professor at Penn State – he stated he had no other funding for the re-search when he had a grant from NSF. The professor accepted a secondgrant later in the year from DOE. When questioned by the University Ad-ministration, he assured them there was no overlap in the 2 grants. Subse-quently, in 2010 he wrote a paper in which he openly acknowledged fundingfrom both NSF and ARPA-E for supporting the same work. That year, theDOE IG spotted similarity between the grants and NSF began its investigation.The rationale that he gave to the Judge was that he was zealous in wantingto help the world, he said that he committed the crimes because, “I got car-ried away.” in the search to fund his work. “I honestly ignored grant rulesand regulations,” he said. He was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison.
In November of 2012 a DOJ Press Release was issued regarding a MorganState University Professor and Director of the University’s Center for Ad-vanced Transportation and Infrastructure Engineering Research, ATRC,who was indicted in a Scheme to Defraud the NSF. The Morgan State pro-fessor incorporated Amar Transportation Research and Consulting, Inc.(ATRC), and was its president and only director. The indictment allegesthat he submitted funding proposals on behalf of ATRC to the STTR. Ac-cording to the indictment, he fraudulently obtained $200,000 in grant fundsfrom the (NSF) Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program tofund a highway project, and attempted to obtain another $500,000 thoughthe same program. The indictment alleges that the professor converted thefunds to his personal use, including: to make payments on his mortgageand personal credit card; authorizing approximately $11,000 in salary pay-ments to his wife, who did not perform NSF-related work; and writing a$6,000 check to himself. He falsely represented that: he would secure “re-lease time” or negotiate other leave options with Morgan State University
By Charlene Blevens
SBIR/STTR – on Your Radar Yet?
48 NCURA Magazine
DESKWhat’s on my
Janet Simons’s Desk
This week seems to
be all about Visiting
Scientist/Scholar
Agreements (VSAs)
for self-funded in-
ternational visitors
to the University of
Maryland, Balti-
more. Over the past
year we’ve executed
140 such agree-
ments. I reviewed a couple of VSAs, and
gave some training on export compliance
that covers VSA procedures. I’ve even talked
with colleagues at another institution work-
ing on their own visiting scholar policies
and procedures.
As with so many other aspects of research
administration, we must balance facilitation
with policing. We welcome visitors while we
address export compliance and other issues
through the VSA process. When the process
involves multiple offices and complex regu-
lations, it’s challenging to smooth the way
for our visitors and our research administra-
tors. At UMB, we continue to struggle with
a conduit that will best “capture” visitors
who have independent access to campus re-
sources and need to sign the VSA. But it’s all
worth it for the thank yous and smiles from
our international colleagues when they ar-
rive on campus.
Janet Simons, MBA, is the Director of ResearchPolicy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.
in order to spend time at ATRC working on the highway project; that ATRC had eightemployees; and that another Morgan State professor would be working for ATRC as aSenior Scientific Advisor. In fact, he remained employed full time as a professor atMorgan State and the indictment alleges that none of the statements were true. Theprofessor also allegedly misrepresented the involvement of the University of Marylandin conducting research on the project and further misrepresented that he had obtaineda $100,000 investment from a third party in order to qualify for matching funds fromNSF. This case is still pending,
Other investigations mentioned in the senate hearing by the IG offices involved dupli-cate SBIR proposals, providing the same deliverables to multiple agencies, resultingin multiple payments for the same work, misrepresentation of the principle investigator(required to be primarily employed by the SBIR) and submitting false certifications.The NSF IG identified two best practices that are beneficial in preventing and prose-cuting fraud; required disclosures and certifications and mandatory attendance atawardee briefings. N
Charlene Blevens, CPA is the Director of Post Award Operations at the Uni-versity of Miami. She is a Certified Fraud Examiner. She has worked in the finan-cial area in both the public and private sector in various capacities for more than23 years with more than 11 years’ experience at universities in research. She haspresented at the NCURA, FRA, SRA and NACCA conferences. In addition she is theauthor of the Summary of University Audits, Settlements and Investigations locatedon the National Conference on College Cost Accounting (NACCA) website at
www.costaccounting.org She can be reached at [email protected]
“Collaborate Conversations”Hello NCURA Magazine readers! We have again compiled some of our fa-vorite recent Collaborate Community conversation topics. Login to NCURACollaborate and see what else is being discussed out there! Notable recenttopics include:
Departmental Administration and Compliance – “Effort ReportingQuestion”, by Karen Thomas, an Administrative Research Associatefrom West Virginia State University. Karen is inquiring about effort cer-tification and PI issues where a PI may be full-time and 100% soft-funded, yet still listed on other proposals with no salary commitment.
In Financial Research, Diane Meyer from the Iowa State UniversityEngineering Research Institute posted a survey on cloud computingand sharing of proposal files, to gather data for her article in thismonths Magazine!
Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions – “Faculty Recogni-tion”, by Jeanne Viviani, Director of Research Programs and Servicesfor New College of Florida, asked for some samples of recognition ac-tivities to celebrate faculty accomplishments.
Finally, in the Electronic Research Community, Terri Hall, Director ofElectronic Research Administration & Reporting at the University ofNotre Dame, provided some humor during the recent federal govern-ment shutdown by posting a link and lyrics to a humorous “I Need aGrant” parody.
http://collaborate.ncura.edu/home
49DECEMBER 2013
University of Washington (UW) Grant and Con-tract Accounting (GCA) is responsible for post-award financial management at an institutionthat is among the top five universities, publicand private, in federal funding. From settingup new awards in the University’s financialsystem, to billing, reporting to sponsors, com-pliance, and managing the closeout process -in GCA we handle each component of post-award financial management.
Do the following sound familiar: Dramatic in-crease in research volume? Stagnant staffing lev-els? Increasingly complex invoicing and reportingrequirements? Extensive growth in global re-search? Explosion in outgoing subcontracts?Swamped beneath a flood of new compliance re-quirements? “Heritage” financial systems notbuilt for grants management? These were the chal-lenges that GCA faced in 2010 that sparked theclear need for a radical change.
For years we had utilized traditional process-im-provement methods to oversee the ballooningpost-award workload. Leadership implementedseveral projects and structural models to addressthe growing variety and complexity of UW’s di-verse research enterprise. We struggled to keepup with growth in customer demand, and our in-ability to process transactions in a timely mannerresulted in unacceptable backlogs. GCA neededto build a foundation of strong business practicesto support both employees and daily operationsif we were to remain successful.
Enter Lean. Late in 2009, V’Ella Warren, SeniorVice President for Finance and Facilities at the UW,introduced Lean to her organization. In January2010, with the guidance of Lean expertise fromSISU consultant Mike Martyn, GCA embarked onthe first of three major improvement projects fo-cused on budget closings (the financial reconcil-iation after the end of the research project). Atthis time, we were structured in teams of three tofive. Each team performed four major functionsand customer service for a designated group ofacademic units. GCA’s work areas were filled withunclosed, partially closed, or un-reconciled budg-
ets that, in the face of higher priorities, fell be-hind—creating a backlog of 5,478 expired budg-ets, some that had expired years earlier.
A cross-functional team of GCA staff and addi-tional fiscal staff directly involved in the supportof researchers, mapped the current state of theprocess, identified where the process got stuck,and set about to target a streamlined way of clos-ing budgets. A decidedly “low-tech” approach re-inforced collaboration, standardized steps, andimmediate feedback. We created a standardizedphysical workspace lacking distractions and com-peting priorities: six clustered workstations eachdedicated to one of the key steps in closing abudget. GCA staff monitored each workstation forvisual cues that indicated sticky spots or slow-downs in the closing process. The Lean team keptcareful track of progress and at the end of eachday, solicited feedback from the staff for ways toimprove before the next day began. Within the first90 days, GCA saw a 50% decrease in the backlogof unclosed budgets.
Customer involvement in designing the new clos-ing process proved to be instrumental to success,
as it provided a transparency for the customersinto GCA’s work. According to one campus cus-tomer who participated on the Lean team, “I likeknowing what happens after my department’s 60days are up (the point at which the budget goesto GCA for closing).”
On the heels of the improvements to the closeoutprocess, a second Lean team was formed to ad-dress GCA’s invoice backlog. This backlog con-sisted of work already performed by researchers,and waiting to be billed to sponsoring agencieswithin the following month or quarter. This rollingbacklog represented $10-16 million in unbilledexpenditures during any given month, creatingchallenges for UW’s sponsors—not to mentionthe risk to the University of un-reimbursed costs.Mapping the current state of the process uncov-ered several complicating factors. Chief amongthese were the wildly varying requirements fordocumentation from UW’s 3,000 + sponsors, aswell as unclear instructions from the sponsors ac-companying the respective awards. Strengtheningthe partnership with our pre-award department,UW’s Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP)—wasthe next step.
Enabling Amazing Science
Using Lean in Post–Award Management atthe University of WashingtonBy Sue Camber, Kirsten DeFries and Lily Gebrenegus
2010: GCA’s standardized workspace for closing budgets
50 NCURA Magazine
A three-day process-mapping, led by Mike Martynand using in-house facilitators, focused and en-ergized the invoicing team which included cam-pus representatives and staff from OSP. Onemember stated, “The best thing about it (thethree-day process mapping) is that it will reallygrab leaders’ attention; it will have impact. Wehave so much support now!” Team members alsonoted how integrated all of GCA’s process are: “It’sall so connected...almost everything starts withbudget set-up, whether it’s invoicing, reporting orclosing.” Another team member found, “Most ofthe pain and opportunities are towards the frontof the process—if we address that, it may elimi-nate much of the work toward the back end.” Tar-geted Lean improvements applied across theinvoicing function addressed effective communi-cation between GCA and campus, a strong part-nership between GCA and OSP, IT improvementsto allow for same-day invoicing set-up, and directcontact with sponsoring agencies to resolve themost complex invoicing requirements.
After these first two GCA teams proved their con-cepts and saw significant improvements in a shorttime, a third team came together to leverage whatwas learned. This team addressed workflowacross the office as a whole and radically recon-figured the space. Before the change, staff andleader desks were overflowing with file folders butthe type of work and its status were unclear, mak-ing it difficult to tell where problems in theprocesses were. The space was redesigned to sup-port the flow of work by removing physical barri-ers to invite more collaboration. We created aseparate team responsible for customer serviceto allow the work groups to focus on improvingtheir processes. Processes were re-envisioned,
and were transformed. We reorganized from acustomer-based structure where each team per-formed all processes for a set of schools and col-leges, to a process-based structure where eachprocess has a dedicated group of staff assigned toit. We refer to these groups as “streams” to en-courage the idea of flow. Each stream is brokendown into stations dedicated to individual func-tions and manned by multiple staff trained on thatparticular function. Creating handoffs as an awardmoves between stations has resulted in staff ex-posing steps that may not be necessary or valuedby our customer.
Now, almost four years after the first team kickedoff, GCA operates completely differently. The walls,cubicles and offices have been torn down. Eachstream sits together to facilitate collaboration andinformation sharing. Standardized desk layoutshelp provide clear visual cues regarding workflowprogress. Visuals show problem areas, and streammembers gather each day to review progress, tar-gets and gaps. Staff work together to discuss road-blocks and brainstorm potential solutions which
they are encouraged to implement right away. Everyday, representatives from each stream in GCA shareemerging issues and new ideas at a 15 minutestand-up meeting called a huddle. This daily hud-dle brings the staff together from their individualprocesses to celebrate and support each other. Theresult: decreases in all our backlogs by an averageof 80% and a marked increase in customer satis-faction. Our team has a renewed sense of purposeand a common goal to serve our researchers andenable amazing science. All of the changes wehave made since implementing Lean have helpedus nimbly move toward our goal of serving thegrowing demands of the research community withno degradation in timeliness or quality.
Lean is a journey. While we’ve made significantprogress in GCA, we will continue to make eachday better than the last. Lean has helped us real-ize that, though the volume flowing into thestreams will likely increase, we now have thetools to manage that flow, rather than allowing itto become an overpowering flood. N
Sue Camber is the Associate Vice President of Finan-cial Management at the University of Washington and theChair of the Board of the Council on Government Rela-tions. She can be reached at [email protected]
Kirsten DeFries is the Director of Campus Servicesat Grant and Contract Accounting at the University ofWashington and can be reached at [email protected]
Lily Gebrenegus is the Associate Director of Cam-pus Services at Grant and Contract Accounting atthe University of Washington. She can be reached [email protected]
2010: GCA desk prior to standardization. 2013: Standardized GCA desk
September 2013: GCA’s progresstoward closing budgets
51DECEMBER 2013
NCURA Magazine: How does it feel to be developing the Interna-tional Region’s first meeting?
Agatha Keller (AK): I am very excited about it and am learning con-stantly. It is very enriching to work together with the other two membersof the program committee, to develop ideas, to discuss them, to dismissthem, start again and find a perfect solution.
Annika Glauner (AG): Though it is a big responsibility within the frame-work of NCURA and its long history of outstanding annual meetings, it is aunique opportunity to actually organize its first international regional meet-ing. Unique as it gives us the freedom and the responsibility to set the barand to define formats. Our intention in designing the first International Re-gion Meeting GOING GLOBAL is to stimulate interaction, generate insightand achieve impact across all of NCURA’s regions and communities. Wewould like the International Region Meetings to become the premier gath-ering of International Research Administrators and Managers of multina-tional research centers and institutions.
Bryony Wakefield (BW): Planning the program with Agatha and Annikais a wonderful experience. It showcases research management on an in-ternational playing field; as we work together and with the presenters todevelop a program that will (hopefully) capture your attention and enticeyou to attend. Moreover, it demonstrates the ease of working across timezones – Skype has become a very useful tool! I first met Agatha and Annikaat the NCURA 54th annual meeting and value the opportunity to work withthem. This year I have had the opportunity to present at the AustralasianResearch Management Society (ARMS) conference and at an ARMS Forumentitled ‘Research Management: Putting the Pieces Together’ and discussthe importance of sister societies. The conference and forum have providedopportunities to promote the upcoming international region meeting andthe importance of NCURA.
NCURA Magazine: How did you become involved in the programcommittee for this meeting?
AK: During the NCURA Annual Con-ference 2012 Annika and I had ameeting with NCURA Executive Direc-tor Kathleen Larmett and we discussedthe possible options for the first Inter-national Region Meeting. We are con-vinced that after an initial set-up phaseof the International Region theyoungest NCURA region is now matureenough to organize its first meeting.As the Past Chair of the InternationalRegion it is a great pleasure for me totake over the role as Program Commit-tee Chair. Needless to say that the or-ganization of such a meeting is a teameffort between Kathleen’s NCURA Staffin Washington and the Program Com-mittee Members. Without the tremen-dous help of the NCURA staff thiswould not happen. They are great!
AG: We believe in the importanceof a strong international region forNCURA and this belief we have beenengaged in communicating over thepast two annual meetings. The In-ternational Region seeks to identify,recognize and disseminate initiatives in global research administration en-deavors. Thus, the upcoming meeting will be a forum to provide the bestexpertise and knowledge for problem-solving in international research ad-ministration and management with the mission to improve the state of re-search administration world-wide.
BW: Being able to come together with people from across the globe at theNCURA 54th annual meeting was very important to the development of the
NCURA’s International Region, (Region VIII) will hold its first Annual Meeting on April 9th, 2014,
in Washington, DC. NCURA Magazine asked the members of the program committee Agatha
Keller (ETH Zurich), Annika Glauner (University of Zurich) and Bryony Wakefield (The University
of Melbourne), what’s it’s like planning such a momentous meeting. Annika Glauner
Agatha Keller
Bryony Wakefield
52 NCURA Magazine
first international region meeting. It provided space to discuss issues per-tinent to those working in research administration outside of the UnitedStates, wanting to work more closely with research administrations withinthe United States. There was also a social opportunity for members of theinternational region to come together at a dinner during the annual meet-ing. The meeting and dinner provided a space for members from outsideof the United States to come together and discuss the value of NCURA andhow we, as international members, can be further involved in this excep-tional society.
NCURA Magazine: Where in Washington, DC, will the meeting take place?
AK: The meeting will take place where the idea for it was borne – the Wash-ington Hilton. The annual conference has been held in DC for the past 55years, 2014 being the 56th annual meeting. But it is not only this tradition,which made us chose this location. GOING GLOBAL will take place exactlyprior to next year’s International Network of Research Management Societies(INORMS) conference which will be held in the US for the first time. Ouraudience as well as the one INORMS intends to attract are similar. So youcan call visiting both events a perfect “double bill,” and which will be a win-win situation for the participants as well as the organizers.
NCURA Magazine: What types of topics will be covered at the meeting?
AG: The title of the Meeting is GOING GLOBAL. It comes at a time whenresearch institutions and centers around the world are facing an unprece-dented set of interwoven global challenges – economic, political, societaland environmental. A changing world order, demographic shifts, resourceshortages and widening inequalities are putting pressure on governmentsto create growth and employment while ensuring fiscal prudence, socialequity and environmental sustainability. The challenges raised by emergingtechnologies and changing consumer behaviors require creative solutionsaround the world. These challenges cannot be solved by one country, byone organization, by one institution but ask for coordinated global re-search collaborations.
Research endeavors world-wide point to a future where innovation – theeffort to create purposeful, focused change in an organization’s or institu-tion’s economic or social potential – is increasingly important as a driverof economic development, competitiveness and risk resilience.
Under the theme GOING GLOBAL, the Meeting’s intensive one-day programtherefore explores the innovation imperative under three thematic sub-themes: Unleashing Innovation: HORIZON 2020; S&T Agreements: To-wards a global circular research system and Implications, Challengesand Recommendations: Finding Compliance in legal, financial andethical aspects world-wide.
NCURA Magazine: When will registration be available?
BW: The registration has already started and the program is continuouslyupdated. So if you have not registered yet, we invite you to do so as thenumber of seats are limited and we are convinced that the sessions will beof great interest not only to our international members but to research ad-ministrators from the US as well. So please visit our website regularly:http://ncuraintlregion.org/meeting
NCURA Magazine: Will you be attending the INORMS 2014 meeting?
AK: Yes, definitely. It will be a perfect continuation of our meeting andwe will have plenty of time to network. They made a great program and Iam convinced that one can only benefit by attending both meetings.
AG: I completely agree. Our aim with GOING GLOBAL is to encourage di-alogue and spread awareness on critical issues to the global research ad-ministrators’ community by providing a platform on which ideas, thoughtsand questions can be expressed and tackled in an open environment – IN-ORMS allows us to widen this open environment. Therefore the programof the 1st International Region Meeting and INORMS are complementary.
BW: I’ve registered, booked my accommodation and my flights (whichfrom Australia is a long way). I’m very much looking forward to attendingINORMS 2014. I was fortunate to attend the inaugural INORMS 2006 Con-gress held in Australia. As a person, then new to the profession, attendingthe Congress left me with a lasting impression of the value, importance andpossibilities for developing a career in research management. Further, thatresearch administration societies are an important way to share informationand good practices. As a member of the INORMS 2016 Congress, whichwill be held in Melbourne, Australia, I am also keen to participate in IN-ORMS 2014.
NCURA Magazine: If a member of your region wishes to volunteer,who do they contact?
AK: Bryony is our Volunteer Coordinator so please turn to her if you areinterested in volunteering. And do not worry if you are not yet familiar withNCURA and its regions. Volunteering is actually a perfect way to learn a lotin a short amount of time. You get to know your colleagues and learn tobenefit from the vast expertise of your colleagues at home and abroad.
BW: If you are interested in becoming a member of the international regioncommittee, please contact me via e-mail: [email protected] It wouldbe great to hear from you and also to see you at the NCURA 1st internationalregion meeting. N
Annika Glauner is Senior Programme & Research Manager, EU GrantsAccess atthe ETH Zurich/University Zurich. She can be reached at [email protected]
Agatha Keller is Co-Director, EU GrantsAccess at the ETH Zurich/University Zurich.She can be reached at [email protected]
Bryony Wakefield is the Director, Research Unit of Faculty of Medicine, Dentistryand Health Sciences at The University of Melbourne. She can be reached [email protected]
Don’t miss the International Region’s inaugural meeting April 9, 2014!
53DECEMBER 2013
HistorySo what is the Cloud anyway? It sounds really newand techy, but it isn’t. The Cloud is a term that hasbeen coined to describe a virtual network of com-puters that are physically located around the world.Cloud services (Nicholson, 2009; Turim-Nygren,2013) come in a variety of formats, including:Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) –
provides servers, storage disks, and facilitiesPlatform as a Service (PaaS) – offers an
application platform upon which anapplication can run, programming language,and web server
Computing as a Service (CaaS) – givesaccess to raw computing power
Software as a Service (SaaS) – hostingapplications on Cloud-based servers; e.g.,Cloud storage via Box, Dropbox, GoogleDrive, iCloud, SkyDrive; email via Google,Hotmail, and Yahoo!
The idea of an “intergalactic computer network”was introduced in the sixties by J.C.R. Licklider,who was responsible for enabling the develop-ment of ARPANET (Advanced Research ProjectsAgency Network) in 1969 (Mohamed, 2009). So,the concept of “Cloud Age” (my term, not Lick-lider’s) goes back several decades, but it reachedcritical mass in the late 2000’s when Web 2.0 ex-panded, allowing Google, Yahoo!, and others tooffer browser-based applications to the masses.
My intention, in this article, is to provide infor-mation about the use of the Cloud in Higher Edu-cation and more specifically in ResearchAdministration, to help the readers make in-formed decisions about appropriate usage ofCloud Programs/Services and apply the best prac-tices that have been shared by our colleagues.This is not an endorsement of any product orservice, and I have no personal or professionalconflict of interest to disclose in this area.
The Cloud in Higher EducationStudents and faculty at institutions of higher edu-cation have used and become proficient in a va-riety of programs and services that areCloud-based. They teach and learn on-line, col-laborate and write papers, and perform researchusing High Performance Computing or Big Data.There are many articles on the web that discussthe advantages and disadvantages of Cloud usagein Higher Education (Winkler, 2011; “Carol,”2010, Hignite, Katz, & Yanosky, 2013; Butler,2012). Some of the Advantages and disadvantagesare highlighted below.
Advantages: scalable storage capacity, stan-dardization, security, access to applications andInformation Technology (IT) talent, mobile ac-cess, cost efficiency (e.g., pay as you go)
Disadvantages: cyber-attacks, reliability andavailability (e.g., downtime), security, cost for smallerorganizations, compliance issues, exit strategies
The Cloud in ResearchAdministration: A SurveyOur responsibilities as researchadministrators have grown alongwith the way our researcherswork. As grant applications havebecome more complex withlarger requests, increasing inter-disciplinary nature of research,and multi-campus applications,file sharing has grown in com-plexity. The files often becomestoo large to disseminate viaemail. Plus, so many individualsare involved in contributing toand editing the file(s) that it’sdifficult to keep track of versions
by email. We are frequently looking for ways tostreamline this work. Use of the Cloud may beone answer.
To get a better idea of how research administratorsare using the Cloud, I conducted a survey in Octo-ber 2013. It was open for 11 days and I received55 responses that were complete enough to includein the following summary (Figure 1). Respondentswere from at least 20 states, primarily from pre-award central administration offices, closely fol-lowed by post-award central administration officesand pre-award college/department offices.
Survey DesignFor the survey, I was interested in the use of Cloudstorage for file sharing as it relates to sponsoredprogram administrators. I described Cloud stor-age as a model of networked data storage whichis maintained, managed, and backed up remotelyon virtualized pools of storage and made availableto users over a network (typically the Internet).There are three main Cloud storage models: Pub-
Proposal Development and Project Management:
Are You Ready for the
Cloud Age?By Diane M. Meyer
Figure 1. Demographics of SurveyRespondents
Central College/ Center OtherAdmin Department Admin
Pre-Award 22 7 2 2
Post-Award 10 4 0 0
Academic 5 2 0 0
IT 2 0 0 0
Other 8 2 0 0
“We believe we’re moving out of
the Ice Age, the Iron Age, the Indus-
trial Age, the Information Age, to
the participation age. You get on
the Net and you do stuff. You IM
(instant message), you blog, you
take pictures, you publish, you pod-
cast, you transact, you distance
learn, you telemedicine. You are
participating on the Internet, not
just viewing stuff.”
- Scott McNealy, former CEO, Sun Microsystems(Shankland, 2005)
54 NCURA Magazine
lic Cloud storage services, such as Dropbox andGoogleDocs; Private Cloud storage services thatprovide a dedicated environment protected be-hind an organization’s firewall; and Hybrid Cloudstorage which is a combination of these two mod-els, including at least one private Cloud and onepublic Cloud infrastructure. The security of thefiles depends upon the hosting companies and theapplications that leverage the Cloud storage.
Although nine Cloud Storage Programs/Serviceswere included in the responses (Figure 2), Drop-box was by far the most frequently used, followedby Google and Box. It’s interesting to note that ofthose who indicated whether they had used an-other program/service prior to the one they werereviewing, roughly one-third said they had usedeither Dropbox or Google.
SelectionWhen asked to rate 18 factors in selection of aCloud program/service, the top five responses (inorder where 1 was selected most) were 1) overallreliability, 2) overall performance, 3) security ofdata, 4) easy to learn, and 5) file recovery/ver-sioning; the bottom five responses, in order where(a) was selected least, were a) ability to assignand manage tasks, b) integration with other pro-grams/apps, c) accessibility of program/servicesupport, d) quality of program/service support,and e) ease of sharing with users outside the in-stitution. While it makes sense that 1-5 wouldmatch the benefits and a-e would match the chal-lenges described below, it isn’t a perfect fit. Couldthis be because there aren’t enough options tomeet our perfect scenario?
BenefitsThe most common response to the benefits of the
Cloud program/services was ease of use (e.g., ad-ministration and file sharing), followed in no par-ticular order by accessibility over low bandwidth,access from various platforms (e.g., desktop, mo-bile device), backups and security, speed and re-liability, versioning (e.g., who accessed the file,what changes were made, ability to access previ-ous versions), and cost (most were free). Severalcomments highlighted the advantage of using theCloud when working with international collabo-rators. As an example, one user said,
“[The program] looks and acts exactlyas a shared drive. The moderator caninvite or disinvite individuals to haveaccess to the shared folders. [The pro-gram] makes it extremely easy formultiple users to contribute to pro-posal materials as long as everyone isaware of the quirks […] (e.g., draggingand dropping files physically movesthem from and into [the programfolder] instead of copying files). An-other advantage […] is that the systemsends alerts to users as files are beingupdated […]. I love this feature be-cause collaborators can get real-timeupdates when others are working onproposal materials, and I find it moti-vates others to action. And finally, al-though our university has the abilityto share files, the process of getting theshared drives and user permissions es-tablished or removed is a cumber-some, multi-step process requiringservice requests, etc., and when devel-oping proposals with multiple investi-
gators, I need to keep the process assimple and user-friendly as possible.”
ChallengesThe disadvantages of the Cloud program/servicescan be categorized into two basic areas, with “ad-ministration concerns” cited nearly four times asoften as “security.” Issues with administration in-clude the burden of creating accounts,assigning/restricting permissions, inability totrack versions or assign tasks, and the fact thatusers can inadvertently delete files from the Cloudfolder or edit a file at the same time, which createsmultiple versions or lost edits. Most of the com-ments about security reflected the disapprovaland/or absence of support from their own IT staff.One respondent summarized the dilemma thisway, “Our IT people would have fits if they learnedwe were using it, but IT has so far failed to providean alternative, so it has been and will continue tobe used.”
Since the physical computers that are used to sup-port Cloud services can be located anywhere inthe world and could contain personal health in-formation (PHI), their usage causes the ResearchAdministration community to pause and considerwhether storing particular files in the Cloud iscompliant with federal regulations like The HealthInsurance Portability and Accountability Act of1996 (HIPPA) Privacy Rule, Federal EducationalRights and Privacy Act (FERPA), InternationalTraffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and ExportAdministration Regulations (EAR) as well as state,local, and institutional policies. As one survey re-sponded indicated, we need to be cautious that“we are not oversharing & creating risks” as a re-sult and another expressed concerns for HIPPAcompliance when using public Cloud services.
Several universities including Iowa State University(ISU) and the University of Wisconsin have workedwith Box, Inc. to negotiate a contract that will as-sure compliance with HIPPA, FERPA, and ITAR/EARregulations, thus assuring that the files will remainon American-based servers. According to JasonShuck, Manager Information Technology for theCollege of Engineering at Iowa State University, theselection and implementation of Box was stream-lined due to the fact that Box and ISU are membersof Internet2 http://www.internet2.edu/about Inter-net2 is a consortium, consisting of over 250Higher Education members working in partner-ship with industry, government agencies, andother education networks to develop and deployadvanced networking technologies and capabili-ties in service of U.S. research and higher educa-
Figure 2. Percentage of SurveyRespondents using Cloud Storage by Program/Service
55DECEMBER 2013
tion. The advantage of this partnership is that uni-versity employees can log into the institutionally-based Box account using their NetID andpassword (i.e., federated identity). The challengesfor implementing this type of service, of course,are finding an advocate for it at the highest levelin the institution, determining how much down-time can be accommodated (less down-timeequals higher cost), selecting the quota for per-person storage, and finding the support for long-term funding.
Usage and Success Stories“It’s so freeing to be able to call upfiles on any machine (or phone), sothat I’m not tied to a single computerand others can easily access them,and so that I don’t have to be the con-duit through which all edits accumu-late in a given file.”
- Anonymous Respondent
Many people shared stories of how they use Cloudstorage. Twice as many respondents indicated thatthey used it with internal collaborators comparedto those who have used it with external users. Themost common usage was for proposal preparationas indicated by this user who “has a ‘sister depart-ment’ within the same institution. We pool our re-sources together when there is a major grantsubmission and we use [a Cloud folder] to store allthe versions of the grant application documents.”
There were post-award uses as well, “intra-de-partmental collaboration, such as the reconcilia-
tion of all awards that may fall under a particularcollege, but where the awards are split among var-ious Analysts. A single Excel document can beloaded and everyone involved can work on thesame document, even simultaneously.” Someunique uses include keeping data/minutes/assign-ments for system-wide user group meetings, de-veloping policy and procedures, collaborating onconference sessions or articles for NCURA Mag-azine, and using Evernote as a Cloud-based notetaking tool.
Best PracticesSeveral respondents generously offered what theyhave found to be best practices:
• Offer an introductory session (probably on-line) to the working group that covers basic andspecial features, plus allowing for questions andanswers while everyone is virtually together.
• Evaluate your needs prior to establishing a sitestructure instead of trying to mirror your exist-ing process. Take advantage of the opportunityfor improvements and efficiency.
• Implement control over file organization andlimit permissions for who can create folders,delete files, etc. Perform a periodic review andreorganization of files.
• At the start of a project, create a folder and askparticipants to upload their résumé/cv/bio, cur-rent and pending support, and other supplemen-tary materials. In this way, they can see if theyhave submitted a required document withouthaving to check with the research administrator.
Summary“Once we had an email submission
due, and at the last minute found
that the file size exceeded our univer-
sity’s allowable email attachment lim-
its. The Principal Investigator, without
breaking a sweat, sent the program
manager an invitation to that partic-
ular folder in Dropbox, where the
manager was able to open the file
and save it to her system. It was a life-
saver in the 11th hour. :-)”
The Cloud Age is here and we can be the agentsfor change at our institutions. We can cautiouslyand appropriately use the Cloud to assist our in-vestigators while accomplishing the goal to pro-tect our institutions. Vendors of CloudPrograms/Services are competing with each otherto provide the tools that we need (e.g., Box (Tam,2013), Google (McHugh, 2012)), so keep youreyes open to see what’s coming soon! N
ReferencesButler, B., (2012, September 25). 12 free cloud storage options, Network World. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/092512-free-cloud-262764.html “Carol” (2010, November 8). An EDUCAUSE view of cloud compute and storage for higher ed. Retrieved September 25, 2013 from http://www.duraspace.org/node/1070
Hignite, K., Katz, R., and Yanosky, R., (2010). Shaping the Higher Education Cloud, EDUCAUSE and NACUBO. Retrieved October 8, 2013 fromhttp://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB9009.pdf
McHugh, M., (2012, April 24), Goodbye Google Docs, hello Google Drive: hands on with Google’s all-encompassing cloud storage, Digital Trends. Retrieved October 8,2013 from http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/goodbye-google-docs-hello-google-drive-hands-on-with-googles-all-encompassing-cloud-storage
Mohamed, A., (2009, March). A history of cloud computing, Computer Weekly. Retrieved October 23, 2013 from http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/A-history-of-cloud-computing
Nicholson, J., (2009, June). Cloud computing’s top issues for higher education, University Business. Retrieved October 9, 2013 fromhttp://www.universitybusiness.com/article/cloud-computings-top-issues-higher-education
Shankland, S., (2005, June 24). Newsmaker: McNealy on message. Retrieved October 22, 2013 from http://news.cnet.com/2008-1010_3-5759831.html Tam, D., (2013, September 16), Box takes on Evernote with consumer-friendly collaboration, CNET News. Retrieved October 10, 2013 from
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57603040-92/box-takes-on-evernote-with-consumer-friendly-collaboration/Turim-Nygren, M., (2013, January 24). Cloud essentials: understanding the basics of cloud computing. Retrieved October 8, 2013 from
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/cloud-essentials-understanding-the-basics-of-cloud-computingWinkler, V., (2011). Cloud computing: virtual cloud security concerns, TechNet Magazine. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/hh641415.aspx
Diane M. Meyer is employed by theEngineering Research Institute at IowaState University. She is currently re-sponsible for pre-award services, prima-rily for large or complex proposals thatare led by College of Engineering faculty.She started working in Research Admin-
istration in 1995 in the central pre-award office. She hasbeen a member of NCURA since 2000 and has served inmany roles for her Region (IV) and at the National level.Diane can be reached at [email protected]
Education: Chemistry/Microbiol-ogy at Stockholm University fol-lowed by PhD in Neuroscience atKarolinska Institutet in Stockholm. Ialso took some classes in law, busi-ness administration and entrepreneurship during that time. I attendNCURA annual meetings and FRA meetings to learn grant-related topics.
Give us a brief overview of your career and how you ended up atthe Karolinska Institutet (KI) in your current position.I did a postdoc in Belgium for three years investigating the sense of touch(in rats) followed by another postdoc at KI where we studied the functionof the spinal cord in leg movements. Then, I was recruited into a researchproject at AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals in Sweden to develop vectors fordelivering blockers of chronic pain into the nervous system. Havingjumped between different fields for a couple of years made it difficult toestablish my own lab. So, when this job as grants coordinator came up, Ifelt that it offered a nice combination of challenges related to science andsecurity. I have always liked the visionary part of setting up a scientific hy-pothesis and devising different ways of testing it more than the actual ex-periments themselves, so I quickly got into the area of giving advice onapplications and other pre-contract support. When I started we really did-n’t have a central post-contract office for international grants. It was allhandled by the departments back then. During the last seven years, thispart has grown more and more, and now it occupies all my time.
In the US most Research Administrators have a business back-ground, but not necessarily a scientific background. How do youfeel your background in science assists in your role as a Re-search Administrator?It is easier to interface with PIs earlier in the application process. Myother colleagues with a PhD and I can give advice also on a strategic leveland help with the science writing as well. On the post-contract side it isof less importance, but it helps having been working as scientist in a de-partment to understand what is going on (when things go wrong). It isalso valuable having an extensive network among the faculty.
What are your current responsibilities at KI and what do youfind most interesting about your current position?
I am currently serving as one of two coor-dinators of our US portfolio of grants.I review and sign contracts and agree-ments related to those grants and sup-port PIs and the departmental staff onreporting and audits. I teach most ofthe classes on US grants management
in our grants management courseand also develop policy and pro-
cedures in different areas ofcompliance.
I like the teaching part themost, but it is also very re-
warding to get the opportunity tomeet and support many different peo-ple from all areas of the university.
What are some of the biggestchallenges you encounter related
to managing US funding at a Swedish institution?The US grants only provide about 5% of the revenue of the external fund-ing but have a large administrative overhead. All changes of policy andprocedures invoked by US legislation are not always happily accepted byeveryone. As the messenger, you need to be bulletproof.
You have been involved with the NCURA/EARMA InternationalFellowship Program both by hosting fellows at KI and by beinga fellow yourself at Stanford. What benefits have you experi-enced as a result of this program?I can really recommend taking part in this program. I had a fantastictime at Stanford, and I learned a lot. I think you need to immerse your-self in another organization to see what you could be doing in a differentway at home. Hosting someone is even more valuable as the visiting fel-low can interact with many people in your own organization, spreadingknowledge which could not be obtained easily another way.
You are currently serving as Vice Chair of NCURA’s InternationalRegion, which was established in 2011. How do you see this Re-gion assisting NCURA’s members from outside the US?I hope the Region can serve as a meeting point for the internationalmembers and that we can learn from each other. I think many of us facesimilar challenges, and perhaps we can develop tools and share experi-ences within this region that will make it attractive for foreign grant ad-ministrators to join NCURA.
The International Region will be holding its first regional meet-ing on April 9, 2014 in Washington, DC. Tell us about your ex-pectations for this initial meeting. It will be held close in time and space to the International Network of Re-search Management Societies (INORMS) meeting, which we hope will bea win-win for both meetings by increasing the number of participants.The challenge will be to offer a program that will entice our internationalmembers to come to Washington a second time outside the annual meet-ings. It is really the inverse of the situation for the other Regional Meet-ings, which are closer to go to for the members. For some it may bemore convenient to travel in April rather than in August, but we can neverreplace or compete with the big NCURA meetings so we have to be inven-tive. We hope that the international flavor of the meeting will also attractmany members from other regions who may be interested in our topics.It is the beginning, so we will have to experiment with both the form andcontent until we see what is most successful. N
Patriq Fagerstedt is US Grants Coordinator at the Karolinska Institutet in Stock-holm, Sweden. Patriq can be reached at [email protected]
Patriq FagerstedtUS Grants Coordinator
Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
56 NCURA Magazine
57DECEMBER 2013
Ask Ann GrantersBy Bob Lucas
Dear Concerned: What it says is thatyou’re blessed. Even better, the blessing mayremain with you for a while, since we are fi-nally emerging from the age of the interimacting pro-tem adjunct walk-on stand-in ad-ministrator.
What disturbs me, though, is your question.Here the gods come down from Olympus withhot towels and massage oil, bid you stretch outfor a full body rub, and you wonder if there issomething wrong with you.
If there’s anything wrong here, it is the searchmechanism.
It seems that whenever universities seek anew chief research officer, they universally optfor the visionary—which puzzles me. Re-searchers are typically grounded in evidence.So how realistic is it to hope to find amongthem someone whose beaker doubles as acrystal ball? Nevertheless, normally sensiblepeople go flaky when they seek a new chiefresearch administrative officer.
The makeup of the search committee guaran-tees that no common sense will enter. Afterappointing a dean, an associate vice presi-dent, and a department chair, the provostpacks the committee with a faculty represen-tative from each college and completely skipsthe research administration office, arguingthat adding another member would make thecommittee unwieldy.
Too bad. Because anecdotal evidence suggeststhat even an entry-level research administratorcan easily discern the sign of the best personfor the job: If they’re male, they’re wearing abow tie; if they’re female, they’re a woman.
But research administrators aren’t part ofthe search committee, and so you get thetypical hire.
The difficulty is once the new hire arrives oncampus, they don’t want to admit they don’tunderstand the day-to -day business of the re-search office. So they disguise their igno-rance behind a series of requests forinformation, like: “When you have time,could you dig into this?” or “What’s our pol-icy on such and so?” or “Where are theskeletons on this issue buried?”
At first, you respond meticulously to these re-quests, believing they have a highly refined na-tional matrix against which they will comparethe local scene and as a result will be able toput their finger on an infinitesimal change thatwill improve things vastly. However, all alongthey are just trying to figure out what “doubleentry ledger” means, and are hoping your re-port will let it slip.
After a while, they begin to ask for reportsyou’ve already sent in. You find yourselfsearching for tactful ways to say, “It’s alreadyon your desk.” Finally, you say nothing at all,but simply reformat the earlier report, print itin Arial rather than Times New Roman, andsend it in.
So how do you get the one who knows the joband with whom you can accomplish things?
You pray that the top four candidates (yourswill be fifth) decline the offer for any of the fol-lowing most frequent reasons: 1) Their homeinstitution countered handsomely; 2) They dis-covered they have allergies to rocks in your re-gion; 3) They applied only to earn the last
4000 frequent flyer miles necessary for twofree tickets to Rio; 4) a scandal has been un-covered. Or they themselves might be “scan-dalized” by something so random as a chanceremark overheard while touring the researchadministrative offices, something like “Egad,this is the third allegation of scientific miscon-duct today!” Not knowing that this simple state-ment was not at all random but actually stagedby the one miffed about not being on thesearch committee.
It usually works. The candidates with the goldnecklaces get scared off, making way for theone with the bow tie.
Which makes you wonder why people don’t dothe right thing in the first place and just choosethe woman. N
Robert A. Lucas, Ph.D., Director of the Institute forScholarly Productivity, An Educational Consulting Cor-poration in San Luis Obispo, CA., is Emeritus AssociateVice President for Graduate Studies, Research, and Fac-ulty Development, California Polytechnic State Univer-sity, San Luis Obispo. Author of over 100 articles on thesubject of research administration and grants develop-ment, he is widely known for his faculty workshops onscholarly and research proposal writing. He can bereached at [email protected]
Editor’s Note: If you have vexing
problems still eluding solutions and need Ann
Granter’s help, please send them to NCURA
Magazine Sr. Editor, Dan Nordquist, at
[email protected] for possible inclusion in a
future NCURA Magazine issue.
Dear Ann: Recently the university where I work hired a new Vice President
for Research. Ann, the search committee must have really been scraping the
bottom of the barrel because you won’t believe this, but they finally hired
someone I can work with. What does this says about me? Concerned
The way research is carried out is changing. Researchers and research institutions are con-fronting the grand challenges, the tough, large scale, and complex problems that requirenew forms of research collaboration to resolve. I recently had the opportunity to explorethese changes more thoroughly through a Universitas 21 Scholarship provided by the Uni-versity of Melbourne, Australia. The question I started with was: How can universities bestfacilitate collaborative interdisciplinary research collaboration (IRC)? To answer this, I trav-elled for two months, via Singapore to Europe, Finland, Norway, the United Kingdom, Ire-land, the United States and Canada. I left the Melbourne winter for summer in the northern hemisphere and it felt like I was on holiday. Hence, the title.
Talbot Rice Gallery, University of Edinburgh
What I Learnt about InterdisciplinaryResearch Collaboration on My Summer‘Vacation’By Simon Kerr
59DECEMBER 2013
Here is a taste of what I learnt:
1 I walk into a meeting with a senior professor.He has been asked to meet with this interloperfrom a colonial outpost on the edge of theknown world. He looks bored, disinterested,disengaged. We start talking, I tell him what Ihave been thinking, ask him a few questions. Anhour later his research colleague is dragginghim unwillingly out of the room because he is30 minutes late for his next appointment(repeat scenario many times over). Lesson:There is a very high level of interest in IRC.
2 Everyone I talked to belonged to aconnected network of scholars andresearchers. Ok, it was a self selecting group,but they were by far the most dynamicresearchers on campus (which was why I gotto talk to them). Lesson: The future (and alarge chunk of the present) does not belongto the traditional lone scholar, even in thehumanities. Contemporary societal challenges
will only be addressed through thecooperation of the many.
3 Ego is a funny thing; many of the leadingresearchers I met had it in spades, but theyalso were able to rein in that ego tosuccessfully collaborate with a wide range ofpeople and across diverse disciplinarycultures. Individuals cannot solve the grandchallenges alone. Lesson: Cooperation is thespirit of the contemporary research effort (inuniversities at least). The group is moreimportant than the individual.
4 Most new Ph.D. students are now Gen Y(whatever that is). But it does mean that theircultural context is different from the previousgenerations. The role identity of ‘academic’ or‘researcher’ is also changing. The UnitedKingdom research councils fund doctoraltraining centres (DTC) which train cohorts ofstudents across multidisciplinary environments,embedding soft skills with familiarity andconsistent exposure to disciplines other thantheir own. Lesson: New generation researchers,in general, will be more familiar andcomfortable with IRC than previousgenerations. It will (is) changing theirexpectations of what doing research means.
5 Some researchers in the UK have beenvisiting the sandpit* a radical fundingprocess used by UK funding agencies todisrupt traditional ways of thinking aboutresearch problems and bring together novelinterdisciplinary projects to seek newsolutions to the big challenges. Lesson:
Interdisciplinary is a conscious activity andIRC is a mindset.
6 Universities were established aroundhistorically based disciplinary silos. This istheir strength, but also their weakness. Silosare hard to see out of, so many universities,faculty and departments I visited wereconsciously creating connections, deliberatelyinventing multidisciplinary interaction andexposure for faculty researchers (‘scienceseminars for dummies’ is how one universitydescribed it). Lesson: We must consciouslyinvest in bridging the disciplinary gaps if weare to see effective IRC.
7 These trends add to the demands of timeand skill on active academics. As funding getsmore problem focused, collaborations larger,and interdisciplinarity complicatescommunication, many academics need thesupport of skilled professional staff. This stuffneeds facilitation. Lesson: Researchadministrators and managers had better takethese trends seriously because we will have tobe as creative as our research colleagues inmaking all this happen. N
Simon Kerr, Ph.D., is Managerof Research, Melbourne School andLand and Environment, Universityof Melbourne, Australia, and is thePresident-Elect of the AustralasianResearch Management Society(ARMS). Simon’s responsibilities
include research strategy, pre and post awardmanagement and policy development. He can bereached at [email protected]
University of Nottingham Innovation Park
Technology and Innovation Centre Industry Engagement Building, University of Strathclyde Glasgow
*http://knowinnovation.com/expertise/sandpit
60 NCURA Magazine
After seven years at the helm, Dr. Ian Carter’s tenure as Chair ofthe UK’s Association of Research Managers and Administrators(ARMA) has come to an end, and on August 1, he was succeededby Dr. Simon Kerridge, Director of Research Services at the Univer-sity of Kent.
Simon has been a member of ARMA for 17 years and was a mem-ber of the Board of Directors for 12 years, from 2000 to 2012.Prior to his new appointment, he acted as a special advisor to theARMA Board of Directors in relation to the development of thenew five-year Strategic Plan & Implementation Frameworkwww.arma.ac.uk/about Simon brings with him a wealth of experi-ence, including detailed knowledge of pre-award and post-awardfinance, post-graduate research, ethics and governance, impactand the UK’s Research Assessment Exercises and Research Excel-lence Framework. Simon’s professional doctorate is in ResearchManagement and Administration and he is a strong advocate forthe formal recognition of research management and administra-tion as a profession and for the accreditation of our profession.
During Ian’s time as Chair, he guided the Associationthrough significant developments and major changesincluding:
✓ Delivery of an expanded Training & Development Programme,successful annual conferences and the 2008 biennial INORMSCongress
✓ Growth of ARMA’s membership number and expansion of theirprofile to over 2,000 individuals from across 220 research or-ganisations
✓ Development, launch and continual enhancement of the ARMAProfessional Development Framework www.arma.ac.uk/professional-development-framework
✓ Recruitment of a specialist, professional staff base, who deliverARMA services in a robust operational structure
✓ Development and publication of the ARMA Strategic Plan andImplementation Framework for 2013-18
✓ Laying the foundation for professional ARMA qualifications(the first of which will be launched in January 2014) and ulti-mately ARMA’s target status as the UK’s Chartered Institute ofResearch Management
Ian will continue to work closely with us on informing and deliver-ing ARMA’s International Excellence strategic priority, and wewould like to take this opportunity to formally acknowledge andthank Ian for his significant leadership of ARMA and for his influ-ence in shaping and strengthening our international community. N
Changing of the Guard at ARMA UKBy Andrew Chamberlain
Andrew Chamberlain is Chief Executive of the Associa-tion of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA), UK.Andrew joined ARMA in November 2011 as the Association’sfirst Chief Executive. An ex officio member of the Board ofDirectors and Company Secretary, he is head of operations,overseeing all facets of day-to-day activity and responsible fortranslating ARMA’s ambitious Strategic Plan into an annual
operational plan. Before joining ARMA, Andrew was head of the Scotland officefor the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges, having previ-ously spent several years working on education and environmental policy de-velopment at the Scottish Funding Council and Scottish Government inEdinburgh and the Ministry of Education in Wellington, New Zealand. He canbe reached at an [email protected]
Dr. Ian Carter, University of Sussex (L) and Dr. SimonKerridge, University of Kent (R).
61
NCURA is dedicated to advancing the field of re-search administration through education and pro-fessional development programs, the sharing ofknowledge and experience by fostering a profes-sional, collegial, and respected com-munity. The annual meeting is amanifestation of this mission,where there are abundant op-portunities for professional de-velopment, learning, andnetworking, all of which ismade possible by the manyskilled and dedicated volun-teers that make up NCURA’smembership.
There is a great deal of plan-ning and effort that goes on be-hind the scenes for manymonths in preparation for theannual meeting. Each year thepresident-elect of NCURA istasked with selecting two co-chairs to form the leadershipteam of the Annual MeetingProgram Committee. Howeverit does not stop there. Thisnewly formed team must usetheir combined wisdom to se-lect a program committee oftheir peers to fill the roles oftrack leaders. The committee isan organic opportunity for mentor-ing. The annual meeting has always been an oc-casion for traditions to be accompanied by brandnew ideas.
The NCURA staff has the annual meeting planningdown to a well oiled machine, but it is the co-chairs who pump the fuel into the machine. Eachyear these leaders are challenged with coming upwith a theme, a team of their colleagues to forma program committee, and lots of creative ideasto make their meeting unique.
The first step is to come up with a vision and atheme for the meeting. It is usually the Chair(President-elect) who will come up with an ideafor a theme, but working with the co-chairs theidea is fleshed out into a vision that will be thetheme of the entire meeting.
In our case, we chose the theme of “Investment– Commitment – Rewards” to reflect a sequenceof events we discover throughout our participa-tion. This cycle is mirrored by the support our
institutions and recognizes that the ultimate grat-ification that comes by way of volunteering is notthe reason we do it but the motivation to continueand encourage others.
The next step is development of the team. As lead-ers it is important to understand how to buildyour team. It is important to have some seasonedprofessionals as well as some rookies on the pro-gram committee. As leaders, we are always takingrisks, but minimizing the risk by pairing excel-lence and experience with new blood, this is howyou build talent. Leaders delegate. Leaders needto identify leaders to carry out their mission. Theprogram co-chairs identify subject matter experts,who they feel can take on a leadership role for atrack, who in turn, in their leadership roles, are
challenged with finding experienced presenters,as well as bringing in new talent.
In step with the growing number of internationalcollaborations of our universities, NCURA has
evolved to reflect this progress. Ourglobal presence and partner-ships, including the representa-tion of 24 countries in ourmembership, has brought us for-ward. Our program content in-cluded a program trackdedicated to the issues we facecollaborating beyond our bor-ders and across continents. Weare extremely fortunate to havestrong leadership and participa-tion from the International Re-gion to help develop this majorcomponent of our Program.
Communication skills are one of,if not the most important quali-ties of a good leader. A leadercannot expect to get the desiredresults if they are not communi-cated clearly. An annual meetinghas a lot of deadlines, and theymust be communicated and fol-lowed up on. Communication isthe key role of the programchairs. Although the NCURA staff
does a lot of the actual follow upwith the program, it is important for the co-chairsto understand where things stand at all times, andto be able to step in when necessary and evaluateif changes need to be made to keep the programgoals on target.
The leaders must communicate the expectationsof the committee early and provide a timeline forthe deliverables. Our teams are made up of vol-unteers who are balancing this extra responsibilityof participating on the annual meeting programcommittee with full time jobs, families, friendsand other volunteer activities. Time is a valuablecommodity to the busy people that are selected tolead the individual tracks that make up the pro-gram. It is important to have a kick off meetingto insure that everyone is on the same page, andto connect regularly with team members, but it is
The Annual Meeting Reach Out:
Opportunities to Mentor and Be Mentored
DECEMBER 2013
Charged as President-elect with selecting two co-chairs to
lead our AM55 Program Committee, I knew that Bruce Morgan,
Susan Zipkin, and I would be a team that could energize and or-
ganize the planning for the AM55 Program. Bruce and Susan rep-
resented several diverse communities within NCURA; Bruce from
California, a large public institution and Susan from New Eng-
land and a smaller private university. The recruitment of the
members of the Program Committee is one of the most important
tasks with which the Chairs are charged. This is an excellent op-
portunity to gather the strengths and expertise from across all re-
gions while balancing experience with opportunities to mentor.
With representation from research administration communities
all over the world, our Program would cover all aspects: US na-
tional and global, federal and non-federal, large and small insti-
tutions, senior members and those new to the field.
– Vivian Holmes
62 NCURA Magazine
important that committees do not impose meet-ings that are not necessary just for the sake of hav-ing them.
Follow up, is as important as the initial launch ofa great idea. Without proper follow up, andcheck-in with those you have delegated to, aleader cannot be confident that their vision isbeing carried out. It is important to nurture therelationships with committee members by check-ing in, and to understand if they are encountering
any unanticipated challenges. Regular check-in’skeep committee members on target, and makethem feel appreciated for their efforts.
Reward and celebration: Once the project iscomplete, in this case the annual meeting haskicked off, there needs to be recognition and cel-ebration of the accomplishments of the team. Itis a tradition to have a reception for the programcommittee, in the presidential suite. The recog-nition of almost a year’s work is noted as your
name is called as a member of the team. You arepart of history now, just as all the volunteersthroughout the program will enjoy having beenpart of this huge undertaking. Your fellow com-mittee members are colleagues with whom youshare a great accomplishment. The membersyou personally contacted to volunteer are likenew friends. No matter your level of experienceor the area in which you contributed – you findthat you have been mentored along this processand, in turn, you have mentored others. N
Co-Chairing an annual meeting is a leadership challenge I had always lookedforward to take on, in fact when I attended NCURA Executive Leadership Program justover a year ago and we were asked to identify some goals for the next 5 years. To be anAnnual Meeting Co-chair was at the top of my list. When Vivian Holmes called me inSeptember and asked me to take on this role, after nearly falling off of my chair, I en-thusiastically accepted! When she told me that Bruce Morgan would be my co-chair Iwas equally excited. There is nothing more important when taking on leadership rolesas having good mentors. I knew that with Vivian and Bruce at my side, I would grow inthis leadership role over the next 10 months as we pulled together the first NCURA na-tional meeting to be held in August. Working with such an amazing group of colleaguesto pull together AM55 has been one of the most rewarding experiences and proudest ac-complishments in my career.
– Susan ZipkinSusan Zipkin, a 2012 NCURA Exec-utive Leadership Program (ELP) gradu-ate and NCURA Region I’s CurriculumCommittee Co-Chair, served as Co-Chairfor 55th Annual Meeting. Susan is cur-rently working as a consultant for At-tain, on a project at Boston Medical
Center. She can be reached at [email protected]
Vivian Holmes is NCURA’s Presi-dent-elect, Vivian Holmes served as aChair for the 55th Annual Meeting; oth-erwise known as the “first annual meet-ing to be held in summer.” It was, by allaccounts, a success. Vivian is Directorof Sponsored Research Operations at the
Broad Institute in Cambridge, MA. She can be reached [email protected]
AM56 Planning UnderwayBe sure you plan to attend NCURA’s 56th Annual Meeting as it is going to be great! Michelle Vazin, Program Chair, and Geor-gette Sakumoto and Cathy Snyder, the Program Co-Chairs, are very excited to be working together to develop an excellentprogram. We have recruited a wonderful committee that is representative of all regions within NCURA to ensure the program
is diverse, well-rounded and very worthwhile. We know what everyone is facing daily in researchadministration….the change, the concerns, and the lack of clarity. That’s why our theme for themeeting is “The Evolution of Research Administration – facing the future…together.”
While our profession is always dealing with some sort of change, we are currently under a heightenedstate of uncertainty. But through the NCURA network, we band together to face what lies ahead. Withthis theme in mind, the program committee met in late November to begin planning and coordinatingover 200 concurrent sessions and discussion groups as well as many wonderful full and half-dayworkshops ranging from basic/newcomer sessions to senior-level offerings. There will be numerousnetworking opportunities and a little bit of relaxation here and there. We are also very excited to
announce that Sunday night’s entertainment at dinner will be “After Dark with Paul and Tucker” featuring Paul Bagala andTucker Carlson! You will not want to miss it! We are just getting started and already the conference is a must for those ofus in Research Administration. There will be much, much more!
Mark your calendars now for August 10 – 13, 2014 in Washington, DC.
Michelle Vazin, Vanderbilt University
Cathy Snyder, Vanderbilt University
Georgette Sakumoto, University of Hawaii
63
Six new Reviewers have joined the NCURA PeerReview Program. These Reviewers volunteeredfor service as a result of a recent Call for Volunteers for research administrators from Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions. Appointed bythe Board of Directors, these Peer Reviewers bring their expertise and knowledge of best practices to the assessment process of sponsoredprogram operations. The newly appointed Reviewers have completed their five hour orientation and will be participating in reviews in the comingmonths. In its sixth year, over 50 reviews of sponsored program operations have occurred, at institutions of all size and volume of sponsoredawards. Further information on the program is found at: http://www.ncura.edu/content/peer_to_peer_review
Newly Appointed NCURA Peer Reviewers
DECEMBER 2013
back row: Pamela Napier, Director, Office of Sponsored Programs, Agnes Scott College; Barbara Gray, Director of Sponsored Programs, East Carolina University
front row: Kris Monahan, Director of Sponsored Research and Programs, Providence College;Tricia Callahan, Director, Proposal Development, Miami University; Peggy Lowry, NCURAProgram Manager; Rosemary Madnick, Assistant Vice President, Research Administration,Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute; Francois Lemire, Director, Grants Administration& Compliance, American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry; Bob Andresen, Chair, NCURA Select Committee on Peer Review, University of Wisconsin - Madison
OSU. My staff has been particularly amazing thisyear. They have “kept the home fires burning”and kept things going when I couldn’t be here inthe office. Y’all are the best!!!
There are also the folks in our national office thatmake this all possible. You deserve a big thanksas well. This year has given me even more respectfor all that each of you does to support us, cheerus on, and “keep the NCURA fires burning.” I feellike a real slacker when I think of all the hourseach of you put in to make NCURA the fantasticorganization it is. Officers, co-chairs and pro-gram committee members come and go, butyou’re always there to support us.
I want to thank all of the Regional Chairs and of-ficers for your support this year as well. I verymuch appreciated and enjoyed being welcomedat each regional meeting attended (and I knowDan and Vivian appreciated it when they attendedyour meeting on my behalf). I also really enjoyedlearning about the different activities that go onin each region. Thank you for letting me be a partof your region.
I want to say thank you again to all of the Boardmembers for all that you’ve done for the organ-ization this year. I value your friendship andcamaraderie, and thank you for your supportand participation.
I will talk about INORMS one more time. I can’tsay “thank you” enough to both Dave Richardsonand Kathleen Larmett for the outstanding workthey’ve done over the past 2+ years to representNCURA in a historic INORMS meeting. I look for-ward to celebrating INORMS’ 2014 success withyou in April 2014! N
______________________________Patricia Hawk is NCURA President and serves as the
Director of the Office of Sponsored Programs at OregonState University. She can be reached at
President’s Message continued from page 3
64 NCURA Magazine
Happy almost end of 2013, everyone! Here are my briefand final updates for the year.
The one day Essentials of Sponsored Research Administration workshopheld on Wednesday, October 30 sold out and we’re planning to hold oneor two workshops the morning of December 11th.
Speaking of December 11th— save the date! The final RADG of the year(working title: “IRB, IACUC, and Biohazards for the Research Administra-tor”) will take place that afternoon and afterwards we’ll bring the day toan end with a social hour to celebrate Region I’s accomplishments in2013.
Save these dates too: The 2014 Spring Meeting will be held on April 27-30 (Sunday workshops this year) will be held at the Mystic Marriott Hoteland Spa in Mystic, CT. Best of luck to 2014 Chair-elect Michelle Auer-bach and her program committee.
Finally, I need to extend my heartfelt gratitude to all Region I volunteers,especially the 2013 officers and advisory committee. You have been myinspiration for many a year. Thanks for keeping me sane this year and Ilook forward to working with all of you again in 2014!
Karen Woodward Massey serves as the outgoing Chair of Region I and isthe Director of Education and Outreach in Research Administration Services atthe Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), Harvard University. She can be reachedat [email protected] or on Twitter @kwmassey.
What an exciting year and so much more tocome. I encourage Region II members to visit
our website at www.ncuraregionii.org to stay up to date on upcomingevents. As you can tell from the flurry of Region II emails you receive, wehave been very busy. Our Professional Development Committee has beendelivering workshops all over Region II. The evaluations have been fan-
tastic and our members have truly taken advantage of this learning op-portunity. Visit our website because the next one may be near you.
Also do not forget to register for our joint meeting with Region III May 4-7, 2014, in St. Pete Beach, Florida. Our program committee is puttingtogether a remarkable program so please make sure to join us.
Brian Squilla serves as the Chair of Region II and is the Chief of Staff, Office ofthe Dean of the Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University.
Please join RegionIII and the BarryUniversity commu-nity in remember-
ing Patrick Lynch, Director of Grants and SponsoredPrograms at Barry and a member of NCURA, who passed away on Octo-ber 9, 2013. His colleagues at Barry provided the following:
In the five years Patrick worked at Barry, he was responsible forbringing in millions of dollars to the university, which went on tofund faculty research, service programs, and scholarships for dis-advantaged students. At NCURA, Patrick was quite active, attendingnational meetings and leading workshops on pre-award topicsand internal grant competitions at PUI campuses. Such was hisreach that he was asked to present at the upcoming conference inSan Francisco in March 2014.
Patrick was an inspired and committed employee of Barry, believ-ing wholeheartedly in the university’s mission and eager to spreadthe word. In turn he inspired others through his good deeds,work ethic, drive for excellence and vast potential. He will bemissed by all who knew him.
The next Region III annual spring meeting is being held in St. Pete Beach,Florida, in conjunction with Region II, at the TradeWinds Island GrandResort May 4th – May 7th. If you have not already made your plans to at-tend, please do. This is a great opportunity for professional develop-ment, to find out how other institutions are handling the issues that youare struggling with currently, and to relax a bit in a beautiful location. Asusual we will be looking for members to volunteer to help make thismeeting successful, so be on the lookout for an email in the near future.Check out the Region III website – www.ncuraregioniii.org – to get moreinformation on the meeting location. If you have never attended one of
REGION INew Englandwww.ncuraregion1.org
https://www.facebook.com/ncuraregion1
REGION IIMid-Atlanticwww.ncuraregionii.org
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ncuraregionii
REGION III Southeastwww.ncuraregioniii.com
https://www.facebook.com/groups/192985687430137
65
these meetings, please take a glance at the meeting archives on the web-site to see the valuable professional development and networking oppor-tunities that are the standard for Region III conferences.
Region III is thrilled to announce winners in the recent election ofDanielle McElwain, University of South Carolina (Chair-Elect) and DavidSmelser, University of Tennessee (Secretary-Elect). We would also like tocongratulate our two travel award winners, MuKesha Voltz from the Uni-versity of Alabama and April Bennett from Elizabeth City State University.
Bill Lambert serves as Region III’s regional corner contributor. Bill is theAssistant Dean for Research Administration at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health.
“Give what you have to somebody, it may be better than you think.” –Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
From writing articles for newsletters, magazines, and journals to present-ing at workshops, sessions, and YouTube Tuesdays to serving as commit-tee members, mentors, and reception hosts, new and seasoned researchadministrators alike make contributions of time and talent that are thelife-blood of Region IV.
Plan to participate in the Region IV Spring Meeting in Indianapolis onApril 27-30, 2014. This cornerstone event promises to be fun-filled, ac-tion-packed, and information-loaded. The meeting theme is “Keys to Suc-cess,” offering research administrators a clear map as they drive to meettheir goals and advance their skills. If you are interested in presenting atthe conference, please contact Chair-Elect Sue Kelch [email protected] your email for more updates and volunteer opportunities!
The Region IV Professional Development Committee is recruiting men-tors for 2014. Mentors are motivated individuals who provide advice,support and guidance to colleagues who are just entering into the field.Visit the regional website for details on how to sign up: www.ncuraregioniv.com.
Congratulations to Christa Johnson, Washington University in St. Louis,who will serve a two-year term as the Region IV representative on theNominating and Leadership Development Committee, and to David Lynch,Northwestern University, who will serve a two-year term as Regionally
Elected Member to the National Board. Terms are effective January 1,2014 - December 31, 2015.
Make 2014 the best year ever – give what you have to extend Region IV’sproud tradition of supporting research together!
Jeremy Miner serves as the Chair of Region IV and is Director of Grants andContracts at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.
Wow, what a year! Usually you are still recovering from the annual meet-ing. Now, with the annual meeting moved to August, you’ve been back inthe office for several months. What possibly could have happened tocause more stress in our jobs? How about sequestration and then a gov-ernment shutdown! Hopefully your work has settled back to “normal”and you will be able to enjoy the upcoming holiday season. You may wantto pick up an updated copy of the FAR clauses to read while you relax byyour fireplace.
We need the help of all our members to make our Region the best it canbe. In the coming months we will be soliciting volunteers from our mem-bers to run for one of our Regional positions. We will be electing a Vice-Chair, Treasurer and two at-large members to the Region V ExecutiveBoard. If you want to get more involved in the region and contributemore to the research administration profession, please consider runningfor one of these positions. Our Regional Committees will also be lookingfor volunteers, if you are interested, please reach out to the Chairs.
You will soon be receiving an invitation and instructions via email to joinRegion V’s Collaborate page. Collaborate is an online tool supported byNCURA National. Collaborate provides a forum for communication, notonly to our members, but between and amongst our members as well.We believe Collaborate will be a valuable tool for sharing information,ideas, and resources. Many of us have been participating in the Collabo-rate neighborhoods since their launch in 2012 and have seen firsthandthe potential of the system.
During November, the Site Selection Committee visited several hotels inHouston to evaluate possible sites for the Regional Spring 2015 meeting.We hope to announce the meeting dates and location very soon. While weare on the subject of Region V’s Spring Meeting, Chair-Elect Hollie
DECEMBER 2013
REGION VSouthwesternwww.ncuraregionv.com
https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=78596532079&v=wall
REGION IVMid-Americawww.ncuraregioniv.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ncura-Region-IV/134667746605561
66 NCURA Magazine
Schreiber, Oklahoma State University, and her program committee havebeen busy planning for our 2014 Spring Meeting, May 3-7 in Austin. Thetheme for the Austin meeting is “Alternative Research Administration:Keepin’ It Weird.”
You can follow Region V on twitter @ncura5 and join our Facebook pageby searching for NCURA Region V.
Scott Davis serves as Chair of Region V and is Associate Director at University ofOklahoma Health Sciences Center.
I say this every year when winterbegins: “Where did the year go?” Ibet you say it too! It may seem likea quiet time of year for NCURA,but we are busily planning for re-gional activities at the March 2014Financial Research Administration
(FRA) and Pre-Award Research Administration (PRA) conferences in SanFrancisco. New for us will be the Region VI New Member Receptionsat these conferences. In the past, such receptions only took place at ourRegional Meeting and the Annual Meeting. However, we know new mem-bers join throughout the year and we want to make sure everyone gets awelcome and orientation to Region VI. Please spread the word to yourcolleagues who will be attending, but who are not members yet. Newmembers will receive their invitations via email.
Quick reminder – The 2014 Regional Meeting will take place October5-8 in Reno, Nevada. Preliminary meeting information is available at:http://www.ogrd.wsu.edu/r6ncura/meetings.aspx If you are interested involunteering, helping with the planning, or presenting, please contact2014 Chair Samantha Westcott [email protected]
In the last issue, I thanked my fellow officers, Treasurer Tim Mildren,Seattle University, and Secretary Sinnamon Tierney, Portland State Uni-versity, for all their work to make this year a success. I would like to nowtake the opportunity to wish the 2014 officers an even more successfulyear… Chair Samantha Westcott, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles;Treasurer Sharon Elenbaas, Loyola Marymount University; and Secre-tary Derick Jones, LA Biomedical Research Institute.It was my pleasureand honor to serve as your Chair of Region VI. Best wishes for a wonder-ful holiday season!
Katherine Ho serves as Region VI Chair and is the Deputy to the AVP and Execu-tive Director of the Office of Sponsored Research at Stanford University.
Save the date! The 1st International RegionMeeting is taking place April 9, 2014, in Wash-
ington D.C. This meeting precedes the Interna-tional Network of Research Management Societies (INORMS)2014 and is a great way to attend two international meetings in oneweek, how can you resist?
Colleagues in the International Region are very excited by this meeting.The meeting will focus on synergies between four hotly debated issues inresearch and higher education world-wide: internationalization and mo-bility, excellence, funding and social inclusion. The program is currentlybeing finalised and registration will open in early 2014.
We have begun the journey of promoting the meeting in Australia throughthe NCURA sister society, the Australasian Research Management Society(ARMS). The annual conference for ARMS was held in Adelaide, Australiafrom 11 – 13 September. A group of research administrators gatheredprior to the ARMS reception to discuss the upcoming meeting; those inattendance included Patricia (Pat) Hawk, NCURA President and Director,Sponsored Programs at Oregon State University; Denise Clark, AssociateVice President at University of Maryland and Dr. Bryony Wakefield,NCURA International Region Volunteer Coordinator and Director, Re-search Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences at theUniversity of Melbourne.
Highlights of this upcoming meeting were also discussed at the ARMSsession, “How to be Seen and Collaborate at an International Confer-ence: How 3 Aussie Girls Survived and Thrived at NCURA,” presented byDr. Sue O’Brien, The University of Queensland; Dr. Bryony Wakefield,The University of Melbourne; and Julie Ward, The University of NewSouth Wales. This session provided an opportunity to discuss the valueof attending research administration meetings and how this can lead tofuture collaborations.
So start packing and we look forward to seeing you in April 2014.
Dr. Bryony Wakefield serves as the Region VIII Volunteer Coordinator and isthe Director, Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences atThe University of Melbourne and is a member of the Program Committee for the In-ternational Region Meeting 2014.
REGIONAL CORNER CONTINUED
REGION VIWesternwww.ogrd.wsu.edu/r6ncura
REGION VIIIInternational
http://www.ncuraintlregion.org
Charlene Blevens, formerly Assistant Vice President for Research Accounting at Florida Inter-national University, became the Director of Post Award Operations at the University of Miami on No-vember 1.
F. John Case, formerly with PricewaterhouseCoopers Higher Education and Aca-demic Medical Center Practice, is now the Senior Vice President for Operations andChief Financial Officer at Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, GA.
Marianne Woods, formerly Senior Associate Vice President for Research at theUniversity of Texas at San Antonio, has accepted a position at Johns Hopkins University as Facultyand the Director of the Master of Science Program in Research Administration.
Research Administration Memes Facebook Page - https://www.facebook.com/ResearchAdministrationMemes Research Administration Memes Twitter Page - https://twitter.com/ResAdmMemes
68 NCURA Magazine
WEBINAREXPORT CONTROL REFORM: What Your Institution Needs to Know Today! ......................................December 10, 2013, 12:30-2:00 pm ET
NATIONAL TRAVELING WORKSHOPSFINANCIAL RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION WORKSHOP
Charleston, SC ...................................................................December 9-11, 2013
DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION WORKSHOPOrlando, FL.........................................................................February 10-12, 2014
LEVEL I: FUNDAMENTALS OF SPONSORED PROJECT ADMINISTRATION WORKSHOP
Orlando, FL ........................................................................February 10-12, 2014
LEVEL II: SPONSORED PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION WORKSHOP – CRITICAL ISSUES IN RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION
Orlando, FL ........................................................................February 10-12, 2014
NATIONAL CONFERENCES2014 FINANCIAL RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION (FRA) CONFERENCE
San Francisco, CA ..................................................................March 15-17, 2014
2014 PRE-AWARD RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION (PRA) CONFERENCESan Francisco, CA ..................................................................March 18-20, 2014
INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF RESEARCH MANAGEMENT SOCIETIES (INORMS) CONGRESS
Washington Hilton Hotel, Washington, DC................................April 10-13, 2014
56TH ANNUAL MEETINGWashington Hilton Hotel, Washington, DC ............................August 10-13, 2014
ONLINE TUTORIALSA Primer on Clinical Trials – 8 week programA Primer on Federal Contracting – 8 week programA Primer on Intellectual Property in Research Agreements –
8 week programA Primer on Subawards – 8 week program
DEADLINES FOR JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014Submission of Articles to Contributing Editors .....................December 2, 2013Submission of Articles to Co-editors.....................................December 6, 2013Submission of Advertisements .............................................December 6, 2013
For further details and updates visit our events calendar at www.ncura.edu
Visit ourwebsite for 2014 enroll-ment periods
Pre-sortedFirst Class
U.S. Postage PAID
Merrifield, VAPermit No. 870
PUBLISHED BY THE
National Council of University Research Administrators1015 18th Street, NW, Suite 901Washington, DC 20036www.ncura.edu
Additional information for authors can be found at:www.ncura.edu/content/news/newsletter/author_instructions.php