March/April 2025 NCURA Magazine by National Council of University Research Administrators

NCURA MAGAZINE

FEATURES

Building Bridges: The Value of Partnerships in Research Administration By Katie Rountree .................................................................. 5

An Unlikely Partnership: Creating a Win-Win Scenario by Empowering Student Workers in Research Administration By Heather Mayen 9

SECURE: Partnering with the Community to Strengthen U.S. Research Protections and Promote Valuable International Collaborations By Mark Haselkorn, Lynette Arias, and Lisa Nichols 11

Tri-Alliance: A Collaborative Partnership for Advancing Post-Award Research

By Angie Rochat, Mary-Ellen Fortini, and Camille Coley ....... 15

Artificial Intelligence: Your Partner in Research Administration By Kirstin Morningstar, Rachael Gaenslen, and Olivia Priedeman 18

The Power of Partnerships and Training Grant Success By Erin Pyrek 21 Employees Using Data to Stay Engaged By Arya Singh and Thomas Spencer 23

Find NCURA on your favorite social media sites!

Whose Got Guidance?: Results from the ARIO/COGR Survey of Research Integrity Officials on the Final ORI Research Misconduct Rule By Kristin West and Lauran Qualkenbush ............................ 28

Research Knows No Borders, Does Export Control?

Maria Marti Prieto and Sia Gosheva-Oney......................

Strong Partnerships in Pre-Award and PostAward Administration

Laura Kingsley

Inclusion Initiatives: Maximizing Partnerships to Elevate Your Success as a Research Administrator

PARTNERSHIPS

IN THIS ISSUE: During this time, it is critical to be creative in how research administrators work together to solve critical issues, and one of the best ways to do this is through partnerships. When thinking about partnerships, the primary classifications are related to running and owning a business. However, research administration has individual, office, and research collaboration partnerships. Not only are there partnerships between individual members of a team but also partnerships with funders, other institutions, and professional organizations like NCURA. Through these partnerships, individuals and teams can accomplish unbelievable goals associated with proposal submissions, award management, and compliance. This issue explores the topic of partnerships and how these are beneficial, have associated challenges, and make us stronger.

One of the first ways to build a partnership is internally within your institution and combining external partnerships. In her article “Building Bridges: The Value of Partnerships,” Katie Roundtree details the importance of internal and external partnerships and strategies for effective relationship building. Heather Mayen further explores internal partnerships by sharing the importance of partnering with students to find innovative ways to improve processes and spark interest in research administration.

Additionally, there has been a successful post-award partnership with the alliance between Santa Clara University, Loyola Marymount University, and the University of San Francisco. In the article “TRI-ALLIANCE: A Collaborative Partnership for Advancing Post-Award Research,” Angie Rochat, Mary-Ellen Fortini, and Camille Coley provide deals with ways their institutions have leveraged shared values, enhanced research capacities, and improved support of faculty and staff.

As we examine partnerships, an emerging area where partnerships are being explored is using Artificial Intelligence (AI). In the article “Artificial Intelligence: Your Partner in Research Administration,” Kirstin Morningstar, Rachael Gaenslen, and Olivia Priedeman share how they have explored a novel approach to how AI could be viewed as a partner instead of a replacement for research administrators.

This issue offers several opportunities to learn about partnerships and essential information about recent regulatory updates regarding research misconduct, Dual Use Research of Concern, and research security. We hope you find several articles inspiring and informative as you explore expanding partnerships. N

Carpantato ‘Tanta’ Myles, Ed.D., EXCS, is the Senior Editor of NCURA Magazine. Tanta serves as the Associate Vice President for Research Integrity Assurance at Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Myles can be reached at tanta.myles@oria.gatech.edu.

NCURA MAGAZINE

SENIOR EDITOR

Tanta Myles

Georgia Tech

CO-EDITORS

Tolise Dailey

Georgetown University School of Medicine

Kathleen Halley-Octa

Attain Partners

Martin Williams

Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Career Development

Lamar Ogelsby

Rutgers University

Robyn Remotigue

University of North Texas HSC at Fort Worth

Clinical/Medical

Christina Stanger

MedStar Health Research Institute

Collaborators

Anthony Beckman

University of Rochester

Lisa Mosley

Yale University

Compliance

Jeff Seo

Northeastern University

Stacy Pritt

Texas A&M University System

Contracting

Theresa Caban

University of Southern California

Beth Kingsley

Yale University

Departmental Research Administration

Kelly Andringa

University of Iowa College of Medicine

Jennifer Cory

Stanford University

Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion

Sheleza Mohamed

American Heart Association

Laneika Musalini

Metropolitan State University of Denver

Financial Research Administration

Erin Bailey

University at Buffalo Clinical and Translational Science Institute

Brian Miller

Emory University

Global - Africa

Josephine Amuron

African Center for Global Health and Social Transformation

Global - Asia Pacific

Lisa Kennedy

University of Queensland

Global - Europe

Joey Gaynor

Trinity College Dublin

Kirsi Reyes-Anastacio

University of Helsinki

EXECUTIVE EDITOR

Marc Schiffman

NCURA

COPY EDITORS

Beth Jager

Claremont McKenna College

Jeanne Kisacky

Cornell University

Paulo Loonin

Duke University School of Medicine

Robin Ruetenik

University of Iowa

Global - Middle East

Reem Younis

United Arab Emirates Ministry of Education

Global - U.S.

MC Gaisbauer

University of California-San Francisco

Christopher Medalis

School for International Training

Pre-Award

Wendy Powers

University of Maine

Trisha Southergill

Colorado State University

Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions

Magui Cardona

University of Baltimore

Michelle Gooding

Barry University

Research Development

Camille Coley

University of San Francisco

Self-Care

Rashonda Harris

Johns Hopkins University

Kim Moreland

University of Wisconsin - Madison

Senior Administrator

Lisa Nichols

University of Notre Dame

Lindsey Spangler

Duke University School of Medicine

Spotlight on Research

Derek Brown

Stanford University

Systems/Data/Intelligence

Thomas Spencer

University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Dan Harmon

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Training Tips

Helene Brazier-Mitouart

Weill Cornell Medicine

Work Smart

Hagan Walker

Prisma Health

Young Professionals

Carol Bitzinger

Ohio State University

Katie Gomez Freeman

Southern Utah University

NCURAMagazine/Submissions.aspx

TMESSAGE FROM YOUR PRESIDENT

By Denise Moody, NCURA President

he magazine’s theme “Partnerships” aptly describes the essential and collective power NCURA members have in our collaborations and sharing of knowledge and resources. As we enter into the Spring season and connect at our March 2025 Financial Research Administration and Pre-Award Research Administration conferences, we further demonstrate NCURA’s resilience through the ever-changing federal landscape as it impacts our research administration profession and the ability to support and foster research at our institutions. I encourage everyone to read the Board Update as further demonstration that NCURA’s Board of Directors remains committed to our membership. NCURA will ensure our organization reflects a culture of accessibility, engagement, and inclusion, as we have done for decades.

NCURA’s conversation and commitment to fostering an inclusive, accessible, and sustainable community began in 1990 with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We ensured selected meeting sites were accessible to all members, NCURA provided signers when requested, and provided education to our regional officers for their regional meetings. In 1998 a Minority Travel Award was established and later renamed for Catherine Taylor-Core who was an NCURA member and early leader in the commitment to inclusion. In the following 27 years, NCURA’s Governance, Committees, Volunteers and Professional staff have worked together to expand programs and practices reflecting a deep dedication to ensuring that all individuals can contribute meaningfully to the profession of Research Administration.

NCURA’s programs are designed to empower and educate through leadership development initiatives, focused education on inclusion and accessibility at our conferences, thought-provoking magazine columns, and international fellowship opportunities. Webinars dedicated to accessibility and engagement provide NCURA members with valuable insights and information to ensure all individuals, and the land we are on, are acknowledged and respected.

To ensure broad access to our programming, NCURA has developed special pricing options tailored to individuals at every career stage, from students and apprentices to young professionals and emeritus members. Organizations benefit from tiered pricing structures for peer reviews, along with unlimited additional free logins for webinars, and bulk registration discounts making critical resources available to as many participants as possible.

Engagement and leadership opportunities are open to all. Open calls to lead, contribute, and present ensure that involvement is based on interest and expertise rather than preexisting connections. Travel awards provide financial support for those who might not otherwise be able to attend, and in-person workshops have been reimagined in an online format,

expanding participation for a broader audience. Virtual volunteer opportunities allow members to engage without travel requirements, fostering networking and professional growth. In 2025, for the first time, a Young Professional has been appointed to the NCURA Board of Directors and Young Professionals from each region will be convening with the Board of Directors and Regional Officers later this year as we work together to consider what community, and engagement could look like in the future.

Accessibility remains a top priority in all aspects of NCURA’s work. Conference and event spaces are designed to be inclusive, offering dedicated areas for connection, reflection, prayer, and nursing mothers. Interpreters and open seating arrangements ensure that all members can fully participate, while our extensive accessibility practices are continually updated and refined to meet evolving needs and opportunities. These efforts create an environment where every member can feel welcomed and supported.

Sustainability is embedded in NCURA’s culture as volunteer service terms are staggered to ensure continuity and fresh perspectives. Every NCURA Professional Staff Member is engaged in professional learning and connection through the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) as well as participation of our Meeting’s team in the International Association of Accessibility Professionals. The Board of Directors, all Committees and the NCURA Professional Staff prioritize engagement and accessibility in their initiatives, reinforcing a long-term commitment to inclusive practices.

As Research Administrators, uncertainty and change are part of our world. As Research Administrators, connection and community are also part of our world. We will continue to support each other and NCURA will continue to ensure you have access to professional development, networking opportunities and the sharing of experiences that are critical to supporting research. Our commitment to you is unwavering, and as we move forward, we do so as a community. We will face challenges and embrace new opportunities, together. N

Most Sincerely,

Denise Moody is the 2025 NCURA President and serves as the Director of Research Operations, Systems, and Policies at The Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation. She can be reached at denise.moody@lundquist.org.

In January of this year, the current Administration quickly began issuing halts on grant funding at all major federal agencies, while the newly established Department of Government Efficiency issued a memo offering deferred resignations to approximately two million federal employees. Executive Orders began piling up.

NCURA: Supporting You and Supporting Research…Together

By Kathleen Larmett, NCURA Executive Director

When the “Friday Night Surprise,” of February 7 hit, the NCURA Board of Directors were meeting and learned, together, that the NIH indirect cost rate had been slashed and capped at 15%. While at the meeting, we unanimously endorsed the American Council on Education’s statement opposing this cap.

As the month continued with more layoffs in both the federal government, including the Department of Education where on March 11, a memo was issued informing all employees of the building’s closure on the 12th, due for “security” reasons. They were instructed to take their laptop home at the end of the day. The Department’s doors where then locked, and during the night employees received notification that over 1,300 had lost their jobs.

Throughout these massive challenges, NCURA has been actively working to assist its members, our colleagues at federal agencies, and the full research community.

Among the ways NCURA is offering support are First Week, where anyone in the research community who have lost employment due to federal budget cuts, can review job openings in our Career Center during the first full week of each month.

A new collaborate site has been launched, “The Changing Federal Landscape,” that allows us to post the latest information on government changes that impact your institution.

Shared space in this magazine for our colleagues from other higher education associations such as PRIM&R, COGR, CSHEMA, APLU, and others to ensure everyone is receiving the same message and opportunities to speak at our conferences, and webinars.

A series of free one-hour webinars to offer ideas and solutions during this time of massive change. Topics include:

• Navigating the Executive Orders at Your Institution

• NIH Flat Rate for Indirect Cost

• Communicating the Current Changing Federal Landscape with Your Team, Your Faculty, Your Administration

• What Comes Next? Planning for Successful Change in Research Administration

At our recent FRA and PRA conferences in San Diego, participants gathered to learn and to share information, ideas, and workarounds they are using to overcome the current federal lack of support for research. Local news media were on hand to hear about important research taking place at participants’ institutions and we were reminded to share the “good news” about the many ways research improves our lives.

As we continue to support you, new initiatives will be announced both here in NCURA Magazine and on our website.

We have faced difficult periods over the years, including the world economic crisis of 2008-2009, and Covid, and each time, NCURA has continued to grow and move forward while supporting the research community. Now, over 9,000 of us are moving forward in strength, as NCURA continues to support you and research… together.

NCURA President Denise Moody

Dr. Quincy Byrdsong interviews FRA Keynote Dr. Mona Hanna

The Value of Partnerships in Research Administration BUILDING BRIDGES:

By Katie Rountree

Research administration is a dynamic profession that requires balancing an intricate web of responsibilities — proposal submissions, award management, and compliance — while navigating the complexities of relationships within and beyond one’s institution. Effective partnerships are the cornerstone of success in this arena. These partnerships span individual team members, departmental units, and external funders. By fostering robust internal and external relationships, research administrators can streamline workflows, enhance communication, and address challenges collaboratively.

The Role of Internal Partnerships

Within a research administration office, partnerships among team members are foundational. Strong interpersonal connections enhance collaboration and efficiency. Investing time to understand employees’ and colleagues’ strengths and areas for development allows teams to operate at their fullest potential. For example, recognizing a colleague’s compliance expertise can improve training opportunities for the entire team, creating a culture of shared knowledge. Doing so ensures that research administrators feel valued as professionals and experts within their community, increasing the likelihood of staff retention and driving

their desire to excel in their performance (Gaudreault et al., 2023). It is also critical to create a culture where there is support/mentorship for employees who are new to research administration. Investing the time to ensure they have the training and tools needed will result in a smoother transition, increase employee retention, and reduce time-consuming issues.

Strengthening Institutional Collaboration

Partnerships within an institution extend beyond departmental boundaries. Collaborating with other units, such as the central accounting, legal, and sponsored projects departments is essential for seamless research administration. Building these relationships requires proactive engagement, including scheduling regular check-ins, attending cross-departmental meetings, and demonstrating a commitment to communication. For instance, when a compliance issue arises, having a strong relationship with central units can help identify the correct parties to include and the information that might be needed to resolve the issue, resulting in an expedited resolution. The same principle may be applied to developing training materials. Such collaborations create a cohesive institutional framework that supports research goals.

The Value of External Partnerships

External relationships with funders and partner institutions are pivotal in research administration. Establishing trust and open communication with these entities can simplify complex or fraught processes. For example, having a virtual “face-to-face” meeting with your sponsor provides insights into their expectations and concerns, enabling administrators to tailor proposals that align with funder priorities. A study by Yvonne van der Toorn et al. (2011) found that face-to-face communication enhances feelings of trust and understanding between negotiating parties more effectively than online methods. The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School also emphasizes that nonverbal cues, such as eye contact and body language, play a significant role in building rapport during negotiations. These cues are more effectively conveyed face-to-face, strengthening connections and collaborative outcomes. This proactive approach not only expedites the resolution of issues, it fosters goodwill between institutions and sponsors.

“In research administration, success hinges on building and maintaining strong partnerships.”

The Long-Term Benefits of Relationship Building

Building relationships, whether internal or external, requires time and effort. While prioritizing tasks over relationship-building activities might seem more efficient in the short term, the long-term benefits far outweigh the initial investment. Strong relationships create an environment where communication flows openly and issues are identified early, allowing for a swift resolution.

For example, consider a scenario in which a grant application faces unexpected hurdles. In an environment with strong internal and external relationships, team members can quickly collaborate to address the issue and establish trust with the funder, facilitating flexible problem-solving. As a study by Allison Metz et al. (2022) highlighted, trust-based relationships in research administration significantly reduce processing time and improve outcomes.

Strategies for Effective Relationship Building

To cultivate meaningful partnerships, research administrators can implement the following strategies:

1. Dedicate Time for Communication: Schedule regular one-on-one or team meetings to foster open dialogue. Face-to-face interaction is significant. Virtual platforms like Zoom or Microsoft Teams can facilitate these interactions, especially when working with geographically dispersed or external collaborators.

2. Active Listening: Pay attention to colleagues’ and partners’ concerns and feedback. This demonstrates respect and builds trust.

3. Tailor Communication Styles: Adapt communication methods to suit the preferences of team members and external partners. For instance, some funders may prefer detailed written updates, while others value concise verbal reports. Adjusting to individual preferences improves efficiency and fosters an environment where team members feel valued and understood. This approach aligns with the findings of a recent study by Daoud Jareb (2024), which highlighted how effective communication strategies significantly enhance team and unit performance.

4. Invest in Training and Professional Development: Encourage team members to participate in workshops, webinars, and certification programs. This will enhance their skills and strengthen the institution’s overall capacity.

Conclusion

In research administration, success hinges on building and maintaining strong partnerships. By fostering relationships within teams, across institutional units, and with external entities, research administrators can create an environment of trust, collaboration, and innovation. While relationship building requires time and effort, the resulting benefits— improved communication, streamlined processes, and enhanced problem-solving—are invaluable.

As the profession of research administration continues to evolve, prioritizing partnerships will remain a key strategy for achieving organizational and research goals. Through collaboration and mutual support, research administrators can navigate the complexities of their roles and drive meaningful progress in the academic and research communities. N

References

Gaudreault, K., Schulz, D., Lynch-Arroyo, R., Olive, C., & Simonton, K. (2023). Research administrators’ perceptions of marginality, isolation, and mattering: Considerations for university and personal job characteristics. Research Management Review, 26(1), 1–26. Jerab, D. (2024). The impact of communication on organizational performance: A comprehensive analysis. Arab American University Jenin; Istanbul University. Available at SRRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4809789 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4809789

Metz, A., Jensen, T., Farley, A., Boaz, A., Bartley, L., & Villodas, M. (2022). Building trusting relationships to support implementation: A proposed theoretical model. Frontiers in Health Services, 2, Article 894599. https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2022.894599

Van der Toorn, J., et al. (2013). Trust and understanding in face-to-face and online negotiations. ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298344972_Trust_and_Understanding_in_Face-to-Face_And_Online_Negotiations\ Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. (n.d.).

Body language in negotiation can build rapport—without saying a word. Retrieved from https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/build-rapport-without-saying-a-word-nb/

Katie Rountree is the Executive Director of the Department of Contracts and Grants at the University of Southern California (USC). With 23 years of experience in research administration, Katie has built a distinguished career managing complex sponsored projects and fostering institutional excellence. Katie holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton University. She can be reached at rountree@usc.edu.

Huron Research Suite

Redesigned from the ground up by experts who know the business of research

Simplify research administration and compliance with Huron Research Suite. Trusted by the top 100 research institutions and backed by 25 years of innovation, our cloud-based software helps your research enterprise:

• Drive innovation with real-time data insights

• Improve operations with automated workflows

• Grow capabilities with a scalable AI-ready platform

• Improve decision making with advanced analytics

• Meet modern security and regulatory expectations

Take a tour of its new features today at go.hcg.com/HRS

An Unlikely Partnership: Creating a Win-Win Scenario by Empowering Student Workers in Research Administration

By Heather Mayen

In the ever-evolving landscape of research administration, staying ahead of challenges requires innovative strategies and resourceful approaches. As the demands on research administrators continue to grow, especially at Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs) and Emerging Research Institutions (ERIs), one of the most impactful tactics is forging strategic and unique partnerships. Research administrators may be surprised to discover that incorporating student workers as active partners in the administrative workflow allows them to tap into students’ often underestimated skills while establishing mutually beneficial collaborations that not only improve operational efficiency but also support student growth and development.

Partnering with Student Workers: A Win-Win Scenario Collaborating with student workers in Sponsored Research Offices (SPOs) not only alleviates some of the burdens placed on research administrators but also serves as an investment in future talent. Students often bring fresh ideas, enthusiasm, and a tech-savvy approach that can modernize processes. Involving them in tasks such as file management, submission processing, and data tracking can streamline operations and create a dynamic learning experience that benefits both the students and the research administration team. Students working as partners in the administrative process gain leadership skills, experience, and confidence, and the Sponsored Research Office gains insights and efficiencies. In this collaboration, students become an integral part of the research administration team and research administrators can streamline processes while providing students with the benefit of a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in managing research grants. Students learn from seasoned administrators, while administrators benefit from the students’ unique perspectives and adaptability.

Streamlining Processes through Collaboration Research Administrators all know that preparing for grant submissions is time-consuming and complex. Once a proposal is submitted there’s an entire back-end process that can be tedious and laborious. Files, whether paper or digital, need to be set up; compliance needs to be ensured; and

As we look toward the future, the need for adaptable, efficient, and forward-thinking research administration is clear.

submissions need to be tracked through to award or decline. At each stage there are additional compliance steps; from tracking financial conflict-of-interest requirements, to ensuring file retention policies are followed, to verifying that Principal Investigators understand the institutional and sponsor-related responsibilities and requirements of their awards. By incorporating student workers into this process, research administration offices can efficiently manage the influx of proposals while providing students with hands-on experience. Training students to assist with file preparation, compliance checks, and data entry allows them to contribute meaningfully to the team while gaining insights into the intricacies of research funding.

As students become familiar with the proposal management process, they can identify bottlenecks and suggest improvements; this fosters a culture of continuous development. Their unique perspectives may lead to the adoption of new technologies or methodologies that further simplify workflows.

Collaborative Management of Forms and Internal Communication

Student workers can be invaluable partners in management of forms and in communications with grant-seeking faculty and staff. Students can be trained to prepare and send conflict-of-interest, export controls, and other compliance forms to Principal Investigators at the proposal stage, as well as to follow up with proposers when more information is needed. They can track proposals, submissions, awards, and declinations using spreadsheets or other resources; send reporting reminders to PIs; and ensure that cost sharing sources are identified. From tracking grants to managing correspondence, students can handle many administrative tasks that could otherwise overwhelm the core research administration staff.

Moreover, these partnerships provide an excellent learning opportunity for students to develop critical skills in project management, communication, and organizational coordination. By actively participating in internal communications and project workflows, students not only contribute to the success of the office but also develop skills that will serve them in future professional environments. Additionally, an understanding of research administration can serve the students in almost any field they enter, as so many of the skills in our field are transferable. Student participation in the administrative process also frees up senior staff to focus on critical responsibilities such as working directly with campus faculty and staff, anticipating future trends, and developing new strategies for research administration.

Student Workers in Action: A Model Partnership at

The College of New Jersey

At The College of New Jersey (TCNJ), a public PUI with approximately 7,000 students, we have built a collaborative partnership with students in our Office of Grants and Sponsored Research. This partnership involves two undergraduate work-study students as well as the recent addition of a graduate assistant who supports some of the more advanced functions of the office. To illustrate our student collaboration: when faculty complete an “Intent to Submit” form—our intake form for submission interest— an email is sent to our general office inbox. Our undergraduate workers monitor that inbox and use the “Intent to Submit” email as a trigger to set up a new grant file. From there, they save the grant guidelines to the file, track financial conflict-of-interest forms as needed, and keep the file updated with any other relevant documentation. As the proposal moves through to submission and then is awarded or declined, the students adapt the files to reflect the proposal’s status and facilitate any additional compliance requirements. Simultaneously, the students move each proposal through a spreadsheet that tracks the status and details of each record.

Because the students are involved in the entire process from file set-up to award implementation, they are well positioned to offer suggestions for potential improvements. Our students are asked to communicate freely with our staff when they have ideas, and all ideas are considered (and often implemented). This allows our office to be ever-evolving, much like our profession!

Clear communication and structured training are key to our successful partnership. We provide students with a comprehensive training manual that describes TCNJ’s grant process as well as procedures for each type of email they may receive in our general inbox. Additionally, we have created detailed workflow checklists for each stage of the process (“Intent to Submit”, Submission, Awarded, Declined, No-Cost Extension, etc.). As students graduate and new students are hired, we ask our senior student on staff to help train incoming students using these tools. In addition to our undergraduate worker processes, our graduate student helps us develop training documents and workflows and sets up

key meetings between our staff and the Principal Investigators (such as fiscal reporting preparation meetings, award implementation meetings, and mid-project check-in meetings). Our graduate student assistant is also trained to enter awards into our financial system of record (Oracle), track reporting deadlines, and pull expenditure reports for Principal Investigators to review.

Both our undergraduate and graduate students are trained to update our grants management software, OneAegis, as well. There they update each proposal’s status and ensure records are accurate and organized.

Preparing for the Future

The need for adaptable, efficient, and forward-thinking research administration is clear. By embracing partnerships with student workers, Sponsored Research Offices can build a sustainable model that supports both current operations and future growth.

Empowering students through collaboration not only lightens the administrative load but also cultivates the next generation of research administrators, creating a skilled and dynamic workforce that will one day lead the profession. As we embrace this approach—both students and administrators working together to solve challenges and drive improvements—we ensure that our research administration practices remain efficient, inclusive, and innovative.

By investing in student workers and recognizing their potential contributions, Sponsored Research Offices can navigate the complexities of the future with confidence and clarity. In partnership, we can look forward to a brighter, more efficient future for research administration. N

Heather Mayen, the Assistant Director of Proposal, Award, and Compliance Administration at The College of New Jersey, leads fiscal pre-award and non-fiscal post-award functions, ensuring compliance and managing grant activity across campus. She has extensive experience in contract and grant management, fiscal compliance, project oversight, budgeting, contract negotiation, and process improvement. She holds a Master’s Degree in Leadership and Public Administration and is a Certified Pre-Award Research Administrator (CPRA). She can be reached at mayenh@tcnj.edu.

SECURE: Partnering with the Community to Strengthen U.S. Research Protections and Promote

Valuable International Collaborations

By Mark Haselkorn, Lynette Arias, and Lisa Nichols

The National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded SECURE (Safeguarding the Entire Community in the U.S. Research Ecosystem) Program includes the SECURE Center led by the University of Washington and SECURE Analytics led by Texas A&M University. Both program components were launched on September 1, 2024, with the mission of empowering the research community to make security-informed decisions about research security concerns. This can only be accomplished through a close partnership with that community, of which NCURA represents a key element.

SECURE partners with the U.S. Government through cooperative agreements and with the research community by working collaboratively with research universities, nonprofit research institutes, and small and medium businesses to identify research security challenges, co-design and develop appropriate solutions, and deliver those solutions within a shared virtual environment (SVE). The objective is to help this diverse stakeholder group enhance the security of the value they produce, without harming the collaboration that is critical to their production of that value.

The community is being engaged primarily through five regional centers: West led by the University of Washington, Southwest led by the

University of Texas San Antonio and Texas A&M, Midwest led by the University of Missouri, Southeast led by Emory University, and Northeast led by Northeastern University. Through these Regional Centers, the SECURE Center will execute a series of co-design and development activities (Co-design Stakeholder Activities - CSAs) with the support of a national design and technical team. CSAs can include a combination of surveys, interviews, in-person stakeholder discussions, literature reviews and other means to identify challenges and potential solutions, including building on resources developed to date as well as creating new foundational tools. At the center of all these activities will be research security officers and equivalents, researchers, and other important stakeholder groups that facilitate and support the work of both.

With the start of the new year, regional centers are ramping up and CSAs have begun. In October, a pilot CSA took place at Rice University with administrators at Southwest institutions who oversee research security efforts. This CSA involved a pre-meeting survey followed by a day-long in-person discussion that further elucidated current challenges, needs, and possible solutions. Participants prioritized tools to assess international collaborations such as guidance, rubrics, case studies, matrices, and

WORK SMART

PARTNERING: A Critical Link for Better Research Administration

By Danielle McElwain

Building partnerships in research administration may be painstaking at first but it is a crucial skill for successful research administrators. Partnerships should be between individual members of an office but also include others, such as:

Researchers: By forming partnerships with researchers, research administrators can be seen as valuable team members rather than obstacles. The first step is not simply answering questions but offering alternatives. Because the typical response in our profession is “it depends”; taking the time to explain what makes an action acceptable or unacceptable will build trust between administrator and researcher. Eventually the researcher will consider the administrator a critical part of their path to success in research. In turn, they will contact their administrator before there is a problem, which will make the job much easier.

Other offices in your institution: Research is multi-faceted, so it is essential for an administrator to form partnerships with many offices throughout their institution. For example, assisting researchers in developing budgets requires an understanding of how expenses are processed to ensure that the budget is sufficient and that all necessary details are in the budget justification to streamline post-award processing. Partnerships with the relevant non-research offices enable everyone to work efficiently and solve problems.

Members of professional organizations like NCURA: Networking at professional organization meetings is a great way to form partnerships with other research administrators. Interacting with these like-minded individuals can provide insight into interpreting guidelines, reviewing sponsor policies, or even developing new policies or implementing new services at the administrator’s home department or institution.

By forming strong relationships, research administrators enhance their effectiveness and foster a collaborative environment that benefits everyone involved. While navigating the complexities of research administration, it is important to remember the importance of these connections and striving to cultivate them for the betterment of our work. N

Danielle McElwain, Assistant Dean for Research Enhancement and Operations in the Molinaroli College of Engineering and Computing at the University of South Carolina, provides professional guidance to principal investigators for the acquisition and management of externally funded programs and projects. Danielle holds a national Certified Research Administrator Certification (CRA) and currently serves as the regionally elected board member for Region 3.

analytics, and resources on threats, including open-source details from federal partners regarding the threat environment and case studies involving both minor and unintentional non-disclosure and more serious cases involving intent to conceal affiliations and funding. Participants also requested disclosure resources and tools, research security training, resources for navigating federal risk concerns, common practice resources, and resources for preparing to handle controlled unclassified information, as well as processes, forms, and case studies regarding visiting scholars.

More recently, the SECURE Center has conducted interviews with subject matter experts and reviewed materials such as responses to NSF’s Dear Colleague Letter issued in 2023 to explore with the community what resources they would like to co-create and use. A program of CSA “streams” has been initiated to begin this co-creation process, which will include two CSAs at the February 2025 ASCE (Academic Security and Counter Exploitation) meeting. One of these will demonstrate the SECURE Analytics tailored analytics tool (Argus). Stakeholders will provide feedback on the desired functions and applicability that the Analytics team can build out in the coming months and years. SECURE Analytics will also provide quarterly reports on research security risks.

The SECURE Center is developing a Shared Virtual Environment (SVE) that will house resources and tools, the Argus portal, and spaces that allow the community and distinct stakeholder groups to engage with each other broadly outside the confines of region, professional affiliation or membership, or academic conference. For these efforts, the SECURE Center engages expert teams that provide insights to challenges and design solutions under development and ensure that the perspectives of all communities, including researchers, businesses, emerging research and minority serving institutions, and others, are well represented in the identification, prioritization and development of tools, resources and training.

SECURE is an investment in you and your institutional research. The SECURE Center team looks forward to engaging with you in support of your efforts as research administrators, your institutions and researchers, and the research being conducted. Expect communications from the National and Regional Centers in the coming weeks and months, with continued and expanded opportunities to engage in this collaborative partnership. Working together, we can better maintain the open and collaborative research environment that has fostered the strength of the U.S. research ecosystem and the value it creates, while addressing the research security challenges of our time. N

Mark Haselkorn is Professor and was founding Chair of the Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering in the College of Engineering at the University of Washington. He currently directs SECURE (Safeguarding the Entire Community in the U.S. Research Ecosystem), an NSF Center that connects and empowers the U.S. research community to better protect the value they produce through federally funded research.

Lynette Arias is the Co-Director of the NSF Funded SECURE Center at the University of Washington. Lynette has more than 30 years of research administration experience including departmental administration and pre and post award department leadership. Through organizations like NCURA, COGR and FDP Lynette has focused much of her career on streamlining grants administration.

Lisa Nichols is Executive Director, Research Security, at the University of Notre Dame with oversight for research security, export controls, regulated data, and facility security. She serves as PI on a SECURE Center subaward as part of the national team. She holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Purdue University.

A Guide to Effective Strategies

and Recommended Practices

The research management ecosystem is complex and diverse with multiple stakeholders supporting the research infrastructure.

NCURA’s comprehensive resource can help to support your team and partner offices across your institution. It covers the full range of issues impacting the grant lifecycle with more than 20 chapters including:

• Research Compliance

• Subawards

• Audits

• Export Controls

• Administering Contracts

• Sponsored Research Operations Assessment

• Pre-Award Administration

• Intellectual Property & Data Rights

• F&A Costs

• Regulatory Environment

• Communications

• Organizational Models

• Post-Award Administration

• Special Issues for Academic Medical Centers

• Special Issues for Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs)

• Training & Education

• Staff and Leadership Development

By the Numbers

• 1100 index references

• 40 articles added over the past year

• 21 chapters

• Updated 4 times a year

• 1 low price

With remotetoday’s comprehensiveenvironmentworkthisPDF resource can be shared with institutionyour colleagues.

Board Update

The NCURA Board gathered in San Juan, Puerto Rico, from February 7-9, 2025, for the first board meeting of this calendar year. This energizing and forward-thinking weekend kicked off Friday evening, just as the NIH issued new supplemental guidance around F&A, which many have called the “Friday night surprise.” While this development certainly caught our attention, the Board, composed of research administration leaders from institutions across the country, stayed forward thinking and strategic. Central to our discussions at this Board meeting were the implications of the many Presidential Executive Orders on NCURA and our membership. The NCURA Board discussed the emerging challenges in the federal funding landscape and voted unanimously to endorse the February 7, 2025, statement from American Council on Education (ACE) president Ted Mitchell, calling into question the administration’s slashing of the NIH IDC rate and characterized this action as dangerous and misguided for the nation’s research enterprise.

The Board delved into strategic planning for the future, ensuring that NCURA continues to thrive in an evolving research landscape focused on our engagement plans with members and prioritizing goals in the strategic plan. President Denise Moody shared her vision and presidential charges for the year and highlighted NCURA’s plans for a third Artificial Intelligence Symposium to be held in August of 2025. She emphasized the need for NCURA to remain nimble, resilient, and forward-thinking.

The Board received updates and engaged in discussion with committee chairs from the Professional Development Committee and the Nominating and Leadership Development Committee. The Board was quite impressed with the reach of our professional development programming and processes in place to ensure programs and leadership opportunities are accessible to members.

There was a strong collective sentiment to remain committed to our core values, now more than ever. At this meeting, the Board approved and reaffirmed the NCURA Guiding Principles which reflect a deep commitment to ensuring accessibility and engagement for all members. Remaining true to our tagline “supporting research together…” there is no doubt the work of the NCURA Board will remain focused on workforce, technology and developing engagement opportunities to support each other through uncertain and changing times.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kris Monahan

Immediate Past President

Kris A. Monahan, PhD, is the Immediate Past President of NCURA and serves as Senior Director, Sponsored Projects and Research Compliance at Providence College. She can be reached at kmonaha6@providence.edu.

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to reach out to any member of the Board of Directors or NCURA staff.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

President

Denise Moody

Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation

Vice President

Shannon Sutton

Georgia State University

Immediate Past President

Kris Monahan

Providence College

Treasurer

Kay Gilstrap

Georgia State University

Secretary

Diane Hillebrand University of North Dakota

Executive Director

Kathleen M. Larmett

National Council of University Research Administrators

Eva Björndal

King’s College London

Natalie Buys University of Colorado Anshutz Medical Campus

Jennifer Cory

Stanford University

Jill Frankenfield

University of Maryland, Baltimore

Katy Gathron

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Melanie Hebl

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Katherine Kissmann

Texas A&M University

Rosemary Madnick

Lundquist Institute for

Biomedical Innovation

Danielle McElwain

University of South Carolina

Nicole Nichols

Washington University in St. Louis

Scott Niles

Georgia Institute of Technology

Lamar Oglesby

Rutgers University

Geraldine Pierre

Boston Children’s Hospital

Lori Ann Schultz

University of Texas, San Antonio

Thomas Spencer

University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

TRI-ALLIANCE: A Collaborative Partnership for Advancing Post-Award Research

By Angie Rochat, Mary-Ellen Fortini, and Camille Coley

The Tri-Alliance, a partnership between Santa Clara University (SCU), Loyola Marymount University (LMU), and the University of San Francisco (USF), represents an innovative collaboration aimed at strengthening research administration and fostering innovation within Jesuit higher education institutions. This strategic alliance was established to leverage shared values, enhance research capabilities, and support faculty and staff in navigating the complexities of research administration in an increasingly competitive academic landscape.

Origins of the Tri-Alliance

The idea for the Tri-Alliance originated in response to an NSF solicitation that prompted USF to reach out to SCU, that in turn suggested involving a colleague from LMU. This initial collaboration led to several in-depth discussions on the strengths and weaknesses of each institution’s research administration efforts. The participating universities quickly recognized their shared challenges and opportunities as emerging research institutions (ERIs) and as Jesuit institutions dedicated to holistic education and social justice.

A key discovery of the Tri-Alliance members was the unique position they occupied within California’s higher education ecosystem. As small private institutions, they often faced challenges distinct from those encountered by the much larger University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) systems. By working together and pooling resources, the Tri-Alliance institutions realized an opportunity to address more effectively the complex research administration issues that prevail in primarily undergraduate institutions and ERIs. The Tri-Alliance also advocated for and developed policies and funding structures that recognized and supported institutions engaged in research that have different needs than larger research universities.

Collaboration and Best Practices

Since its inception, the Tri-Alliance has facilitated deeper collaboration among research administrators at SCU, LMU, and USF. Leaders within the partnership have brought together their staff, thereby promoting the exchange of advice, training ideas, and best practices. This collaboration has enabled the institutions to develop shared approaches—such as financial enterprise systems, compliance procedures, and faculty support systems—to research administration challenges.

One of the key focus areas of the Tri-Alliance is to increase efficiency in financial reporting and post-award account management. Enhancing financial enterprise systems, the institutions can streamline processes and improve financial oversight, compliance, and internal and external

reporting. Additionally, the alliance is fostering cross-institutional support for faculty, ensuring that researchers receive comprehensive assistance in navigating compliance requirements, project management, and financial analysis.

Education and training are also central to the Tri-Alliance’s mission. By coordinating sponsored research training sessions and sharing expertise across institutions, the alliance helps ensure that research administrators are well-equipped to support faculty in securing and managing grants.

• Facilitated Collaboration – The Tri-Alliance enhances collaboration among research administrators at SCU, LMU, and USF, promoting shared strategies for research administration challenges.

• Best Practices Exchange – The Tri-Alliance’s institutional leaders and staff engage in peer advisory services, sharing advice, training methods, and best practices to enhance research administration.

• Financial Oversight Improvement – The Tri-Alliance increases efficiency in financial reporting and post-award account management through enhanced financial enterprise systems.

• Cross-Divisional Faculty Support – The Tri-Alliance strengthens support for faculty by integrating assistance across divisions in compliance, project management, and financial analysis.

• Education and Training – The Tri-Alliance prioritizes research administrator training by coordinating sponsored research sessions with internal and external experts to share knowledge.

• Grant Competitiveness – The Tri-Alliance strengthens research administration infrastructure enhancing the institutions’ competitiveness to secure federal and private research funding.

This alliance not only strengthens the research infrastructure at each institution but also enhances their collective ability to compete for federal and private research funding.

Expanding the Network and Future Directions

The success of the Tri-Alliance has laid the groundwork for expanding the partnership by the inclusion of additional institutions. As the Tri-Alliance grows, it will continue to serve as a model for other Jesuit institutions and ERIs seeking to build collaborative networks for research administration. This is an unintended, yet valuable, outcome.

The rejuvenation of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU) Research Administration Network is one such exciting development. Though in its nascent stage of reorganization, by integrating the insights and best practices gained through the Tri-Alliance, this network will play a vital role in strengthening research administration across the broader AJCU network. As the foundation built with SCU, LMU, and USF strengthens, new members of the Tri-Alliance will be invited to join.

The revitalization of this network reflects a renewed commitment by the institutions to supporting research at Jesuit institutions and ensuring that faculty and students have the resources and infrastructure necessary to pursue groundbreaking scholarship. While expanding the AJCU is one goal, the Tri-Alliance will also produce toolkits, a compliance compendium, and other resources that could benefit other predominantly undergraduate research institutions and ERIs.

A Promising Future for the Tri-Alliance

The Tri-Alliance stands as a testament to the power of collaboration in higher education. By uniting SCU, LMU, and USF in a shared mission to enhance research administration, the partnership has already yielded significant benefits in terms of efficiency, training, and strategic planning. The Tri-Alliance will continue to evolve; as it gains momentum, the impact of this initiative is poised to grow even further.

In a time when research funding is increasingly competitive and institutions must navigate complex regulatory environments, the Tri-Alliance offers a compelling model for how collaboration can drive success. Through shared expertise, joint initiatives, and a commitment to the Jesuit tradition of academic excellence and social justice, the Tri-Alliance is paving the way for a stronger, more cohesive research ecosystem within Jesuit higher education among ERIs. N

Angie Rochat, Assistant Vice Provost for Research at Loyola Marymount University, leads project administration, oversees coordination, and serves as the primary liaison with university partners and NSF. A seasoned leader in research administration, she brings extensive experience from professional societies and advisory boards, ensuring effective project execution and institutional collaboration. She can be reached at Angie.Rochat@lmu.edu.

Dr. Mary-Ellen Fortini, Senior Director of Sponsored Projects at Santa Clara University, has more than 20 years of research administration experience. She established a sponsored projects office, managed a $100,000,000 research portfolio, and actively contributes to NCURA. A former public health researcher, she brings deep expertise in securing and managing competitive grants. She can be reached at mfortini@scu.edu.

Dr. Camille Coley, Associate Vice Provost at University of San Francisco, drives research growth through team science and capacity-building. A proven leader, she has doubled research expenditures at multiple institutions and is poised to do the same at USF. A Certified Research Administrator and Mediator, she excels in strategic institutional partnerships. She can be reached at ccoley@usfca.edu.

• Administering Research Contracts

• Compensation-Personal Services: Documenting and Supporting Salary Charges to Federal Award

• Crafting Fully Compliant Budgets

• Financial Management of Sponsored Program Awards

• How to Effectively Manage an Audit

• Improving Efﬁciencies: Assessing the Sponsored Research Operation

• International Research Collaborations

• A Primer on Business Continuity

• A Primer on Export Controls

• Understanding & Managing Sponsored Program Administration at Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions

IArtificial Intelligence: Your Partner in Research Administration

By Kirstin Morningstar, Rachael Gaenslen, and Olivia Priedeman

n today’s rapidly evolving technological landscape, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is making significant strides across various industries. One area where AI holds immense potential is in research administration.

Particularly at this stage of its development, AI can be reliably leveraged to handle routine, repetitive tasks – such as data entry, extraction, and review – that are common in research administration processes. By automating tasks and managing and tracking against regulatory and award documentation, AI can significantly reduce the time and effort required by human staff.

Viewing AI as a Partner

As institutions look to respond to the increasing complexities of research administration and effectively support a growing research portfolio, leaders should look to AI as a partner – not a replacement – for human staff. AI is a tool to augment your team, allowing them to work smarter, not harder, by streamlining processes, enhancing compliance, and ultimately optimizing team workloads by allowing administrators to focus on higher-value work.

Many research administration teams are feeling overwhelmed by workload volume, and offices are facing retention and turnover challenges. AI can help fill the gaps by handling high-volume or repetitive administrative tasks that may be de-prioritized, supplementing the research compliance expertise, institutional knowledge, and cultivated sponsor and faculty relationships honed by research administrators.

Implementing AI: Action Steps

When taking the next steps toward implementing or optimizing the use of AI, it can be challenging to know where to begin. Institutions can set themselves up for success by:

1. Grounding in Governance, Oversight, and Strategy

2. Starting Small: Focusing on an Administratively Burdensome Process

3. Leveraging Partnerships as Needed to Make Progress

1. Grounding in Governance, Oversight, and Strategy

Establishing governance and oversight is critical to beginning your institution’s AI journey – particularly in risk-averse cultures, since AI relates to highly regulated processes, or when leaders are unfamiliar with AI.

Elements of AI governance and oversight to consider establishing within your office or, optimally, your institution overall, include but are not limited to:

• A Governance Committee that is cross-functional

• A clear Governance Charge and Project Plan

• An AI Strategic Plan

• AI Guiding Principles

• AI Policies

2. Starting Small: Focusing on an Administratively Burdensome Process

Hot Topic

There are nearly infinite ways AI can be leveraged, so many institutions feel overwhelmed by AI’s possibilities and are unsure how to make meaningful progress. One effective approach when getting started is to think through the research lifecycle and your team’s process steps, and then narrow in on an administratively burdensome, high-volume area to tackle first.

Finding success in one use case builds confidence and opens the door for more ease of implementation and adoption across other functional areas.

3. Leveraging Partnerships as Needed to Make Progress

One way to make focused progress and realize AI’s benefits more quickly and effectively is to leverage partnerships for AI design and implementation. This may include internal partnerships – by working across teams and functional areas – but also may include engaging with external partners who have dedicated time and expertise to focus on AI efforts.

Case Study: UT Arlington IRB Solution

The University of Texas at Arlington (UTA), a Carnegie R-1 institution with 41,000 students, used each of the noted “action steps” in their own exploration of AI.

In 2023, as UTA began setting up governance and principles for use of AI, a strategy emerged to evaluate its feasibility in several areas on campus, including classroom settings and university administration. As the Office of Regulatory Services grappled with an ever-increasing workload, they wondered if AI could benefit their compliance programs such as Export Control, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), or Institutional Review Board (IRB). Once receiving the green light to lead a test case, they selected their IRB program for testing due to its high volume and workload.

Recognizing the need to “start small,” they began with a limited scope, proof-of-concept project focused on an internal process (as opposed to a researcher-facing one). Utilizing contacts through its current campus enterprise system, UTA partnered with an external vendor for technical expertise and development. The IT Office rounded out the partnership to provide technical support on implementation within the current infrastructure.

The project involved two elements:

1. Automation: IRB staff utilize a shared spreadsheet to track the status and internal notes on all pending IRB protocol submissions. Previously, staff manually added entries into this spreadsheet which required them to open each submission and search for the required data. Entries took 5 to 10 minutes to complete, with an average of 10 to 20 entries per day. The AI automation feature was able to scan incoming protocol submissions in real-time, extract the necessary data, and create an entry into the spreadsheet, thus eliminating this manual task completely.

2. Decision-Making: The project explored AI’s decision-making capabilities in predicting what rules or regulations apply to a protocol and which “review pathway” it requires. For example, research supported by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is governed by the Common Rule which requires the proposed study to be reviewed under three main pathways – exempt, expedited, or full board. These determinations are typically made by IRB staff during their initial review of the study and are based on the funding source, specific activities involved, and the risk level of the research. IRB staff developed rules and conditions to direct the AI to specific data points, forms, or investigator responses within the full protocol application to identify the funding source and risk level, and then to use that information to predict the regulations applied and the corresponding review pathway. These predictions help for planning purposes –potential full board protocols are identified as soon as they are submitted (reducing a bottleneck), and staff can self-assign reviews based on their specialties and time available.

After a few iterations, the AI solution’s predictions reached about 70% accuracy. Overall, the project was limited by its proof-of-concept scope and accuracy, so in order for UTA to be comfortable relying on it, UTA staff agreed the AI would need additional training and they would need to fine-tune the rules and conditions given to it.

However, valuable lessons have already been gleaned from this experience, including understanding AI’s capabilities for integration with current infrastructure, how to better predict and analyze return on investment for future projects, and how early test cases can inform UTA’s overall strategies and governance. Staff learned how AI can serve as a partner in their day-to-day work, eliminating menial tasks and providing support and insight for more complicated work.

UTA will continue exploring the use of AI for improving efficiency and customer service, such as scanning protocols for completeness and

providing feedback to investigators prior to submission to the IRB. The possibilities are endless!

Conclusion

By partnering with AI, research administration teams can support compliance and operate efficiently as well as continue developing and learning from AI capabilities. When starting with good planning, principles, and governance, and by realizing successes in incremental wins, institutions can make meaningful progress in integrating AI into their broader processes.

Furthermore, by embracing AI as a partner, research administrators can realize more capacity for higher value work and teams can scale effectively to meet the increasing demands of research administration. N

Kirstin Morningstar, MBA, CIP, CPIA, is the Executive Director of Regulatory Services at The University of Texas at Arlington (UTA). She has more than 20 years of experience in research compliance including oversight of programs for the IRB, IACUC, IBC, research conflicts of interest, export control, research misconduct, foreign influence, and responsible conduct of research (RCR). Kirstin can be reached at kmorning@uta.edu.

Rachael Gaenslen is a Manager in Huron’s Education & Research practice. She specializes in higher education and research strategy, particularly in initiatives and tools that impact all aspects of higher education organizations. Rachael can be reached at rgaenslen@hcg.com.

Olivia Priedeman is a Manager in Huron’s Education & Research practice. She specializes in post-award financial management, research administration transformation, and research analytics. Olivia can be reached at opriedeman@hcg.com.

Hot Topic: Partnering with Artificial Intelligence

By Carpantato ‘Tanta’ Myles

Although the use of AI is not an entirely new concept for research administration, the number of administrators who are attempting to use AI to improve processes and operations has increased. During this period of funding uncertainty, there has become a greater need to maximize efforts to allow administrators to focus on higher-value work, which could help lessen burnout and increase compliance. However, there is a need to develop AI as a partner rather than a replacement for administrators by allowing focus on tasks that require critical skills.

For this issue, we are highlighting the work of Kirstin Morningstar and her team at The University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) in collaboration with her colleagues Rachael Gaenslen and Olivia Priedeman from Huron’s Education and Research Practice. The authors identified critical action steps for implementing or optimizing the use of AI in research administration, which include grounding the project in governance, oversight, and strategy, starting small by focusing on administratively burdensome tasks, and establishing partnerships.

They also provide a case study at UTA, which utilizes AI to automate the entry of protocol details into a spreadsheet and to determine if projects should be reviewed as an exemption, expedited, or full board. UTA determined that AI was able to determine review status at around 70%, showing promising use of AI in research administration.

The use of AI tools in our profession is expanding, helping to reduce the workload by removing repetitive tasks. While AI continues to advance, there is still much to learn about the appropriate and compliant use of these tools for data extraction and entry, compliance verification, and decision support. N

Research Management Review

Check out the latest articles of our scholarly journal!

Standard, Expedited, or Exempt: Can ChatGPT Determine IRB Review Category?

Emmett Lombard, Gannon University

Exploring Marginality, Isolation, and Perceived Mattering Among Research Administrators

Denis Schulz, California State University San Marcos, Karen Gaudreault, University of New Mexico, and Ruby Lynch-Arroyo, University of Texas at El Paso

A Case Study of Research Administrator Perceptions of Job Satisfaction in a Central Research Administration Unit at a Private University

Noelle Strom, University of Denver

Research Security and the Cost of Compliance: Phase I Report

Council on Government Relations

BOOK REVIEW: The SAGE Handbook for Research Management, 1st ed.

Chloe Brown, Texas State University

BOOK REVIEW: The Mentor’s Guide: Five Steps to Build a Successful Mentor Program, 2nd ed.

Clinton Patterson, Texas A&M University

Call for Articles

The Research Management Review invites authors to submit article proposals. The online journal publishes a wide variety of scholarly articles intended to advance the profession of research administration. Authors can submit manuscripts on diverse topics.

www.ncura.edu/Publications/ResearchManagementReview.aspx

The Power of Partnerships and Training Grant Success

By Erin Pyrek

Training grants are an amazing opportunity for an institution to facilitate research training experiences, offering exciting opportunities to research newbies or experienced professionals. Whatever the target audience, a departmental research administrator is behind the scenes making sure the entire program gets launched and runs smoothly. Also hidden are the partnerships that make a training grant program thrive. These partnerships range from within the department, college, or institution, to partnerships with external organizations.

When the research administrator (RA) receives a notice of award for a training grant, the RA should start by reviewing the submitted proposal; it has everything the Principal Investigator (PI) committed to do throughout the program, letters of institutional support, and of course, the all-important budget. The RA should reach out to the respective areas offering support. Note that those letters of support can be sneaky; institutions want to show support without committing to cost share. If you’re at a public institution, an area where you might feel cash-strapped is probably the discretionary funding used for food at trainee events. Establish a connection with the person or office who has discretionary funds and can authorize those purchases. Outline the anticipated discretionary budget and timeline and obtain a true commitment or authorization.

A well-structured program can be the determining factor in whether a highly desirable trainee chooses your program over another. Partner with the marketing and web team to advertise the program and establish a website where prospective trainees can learn about the program. In this way, research administrators utilize the expertise of these partners to help make the program shine.

If it’s an NSF training grant, the PI has budgeted for participant support. That means the trainees receive stipends, NOT regular wages. Participant support typically has its own ledger codes since it is excluded from Modified Total Direct Costs. As the research administrator, you are the front line for compliance to ensure the expenses marked as participant support truly are participant support. This can generally include, but is not limited to, trainee stipends, travel, subsistence, and fees, so you need to be familiar with both the PI’s budget and institutional guidelines on participant support. The RA needs to partner with human resources to ensure the trainees are entered into the system as trainees or participants rather than regular employees.

Once trainees have been selected and matched with an investigator, the mentoring begins. Mentoring is integral to trainee success, as evidenced by recent enhancements to mentoring requirements on federal training grants. At its core, mentoring is a partnership between the teacher and the student. Trainees often have a primary mentor as well as a co-mentor. If this is an interdisciplinary training grant, those mentors likely extend beyond your own college so it’s important to establish communication about the expectations for mentoring on the grant. If the trainee is an

Summer 1

Freshman Year (Fall)

Freshman Year (Spring) Summer 2

Sophomore Year (Fall)

Sophomore Year (Spring)

Summer 3

• TD Summer Success Program (5 weeks)

• URI ESTEEMED Academy (1 week)

• Coursework for Major

• TD and ESTEEMED Advising

• ESTEEMED Weekly Seminar

• Coursework + Advising

• Laboratory Shadowing

• ESTEEMED Weekly Seminar

• Optional Summer Research Experience

• Coursework + Advising

• Mentored Research (8-10 hours/week)

• Monthly ESTEEMED Seminar

• Entering Research course (3 credits)

• Mentored Research (8-10 hours/week)

• Present at ESTEEMED Research Symposium

• Required Summer Research Experience

undergraduate, they might also be matched with a graduate student mentor as part of the training program. A training grant is a giant networking event, and the number of people with whom the trainee can connect during the program expands the possibility of organic, informal mentoring, giving the trainee a true mosaic of mentoring. Ideally, if they haven’t already, formal mentors will receive training on how to be a mentor. This not only benefits the mentors and trainees in the program but also has the broader impact of improving mentoring outside the training grant. If you are looking for resources on mentorship, the Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experience in Research (CIMER) at the University of Wisconsin–Madison is a great one. You can also search the CIMER database for CIMER Trained Facilitators from other units at your institution. Partnering with those trained facilitators and utilizing their expertise will ensure the training grant mentors can create valuable mentoring experiences.

The training program may include field trips to an industry partner, or an industry partner may come in and give a seminar. Likely, the lead PI or other investigators will have such contacts, but the RA should maintain a record of these potential industry partners. When preparing a schedule of events, that information will then be at the ready.

After the trainee has researched, they’ll have results! If these trainees are undergraduates, having a poster session at the end of the program is common, allowing them to showcase their research and practice commu-

Sample structure of a well-organized training program (URI ESTEEMED 2024)

Diagram of potential training grant partners:

nicating with scientists and laypersons both inside and outside their discipline. This is where the partnership with marketing or public relations comes into play. The RA should get as much media coverage as possible to showcase the trainees and program. The icing on the cake is when the training program also offers students an opportunity to present a student poster at a professional organization’s annual conference. A conference presentation elevates the trainee experience from a student doing something awesome at school to being seen as a young professional in the field and beginning to understand their power as the next generation of STEM influencers. Presenting at a conference has motivated many students to apply for graduate school rather than applying for jobs in industry. That one event can change their entire career trajectory! If the training grant doesn’t have funds in its own budget, be aware of other

available resources, and try to refer students to other options for conference travel funds. Potentially, the PI supervising the research or an office of undergraduate research might be able to help.

Lastly, a research administrator’s final partnership role is to help in evaluating the program. This is an ongoing task throughout the program because the RA will want to collect trainee feedback on everything from individual seminars to the overall program, as well as faculty feedback on the program. The RA should collect, summarize, and graph that data for the PIs so they can include the information in the annual report. This includes contacting former trainees for updates on their education and careers. The partnership an RA develops with trainees during the program can extend for decades!

Research administrators help the PIs bring their training grant proposal to life through these actions. The partnerships the research administrator develops and maintains help the program succeed, and the institution and broader community benefit. When those trainees transition to successful careers as educators, scientists, and STEM executives, the lasting impact of that training grant, its partners, and an RA’s hard work continues to spread. N

Island https://web.uri.edu/esteemed/wp-content/uploads/sites/2157/2024-Program-Overview-Details-1-2.pdf

Erin M. Pyrek, MS, CRA, is a Finance Specialist II at Cornell University is a graduate of NCURA Region II’s Cheryl-Lee Howard Mentor Me Program. Erin’s responsibilities include post award portfolio management. She can be reached at erin.pyrek@cornell.edu.

Attain Partners brings experienced subject matter experts to help you manage your organization—all on a short-term, mid-term, or long-term basis.

As a dynamic consultancy with many areas of deep expertise, we can provide tailored support efciently. We know your organization—we’ve been there.

Meenach, Samantha A. (2024). URI ESTEEMED Program Overview, University of Rhode

TData

Employees Using to Stay Engaged

By Arya Singh and Thomas Spencer

“The future of higher education depends on IT and research teams innovating faster than ever before— yet 68% of employees in these roles report rising workloads as a major challenge” (EDUCAUSE, 2024).

his striking reality highlights the growing demand for skilled employees, paired with increasing expectations. Amid these pressures, organizations are turning to partnerships that not only alleviate workload burdens but also deliver meaningful and impactful outcomes.

Beginning in early 2021, the American economic phenomenon known as the Great Resignation led to a rash of employees leaving their jobs due to myriad reasons, including job dissatisfaction, wage stagnation, the COVID-19 pandemic, and hostile work environments.

In parallel, younger workers have voiced the need to understand the “why” supporting their role. A growing number of people are not interested in just getting by or only receiving competitive pay and benefits while working for the profit of their employer. Research administrators want to understand how their work impacts them, their peers, and their communities, while also seeking work-life balance, career advancement, respect, and professional development.

There have been many proposed tools and dozens of leadership books written to address these topics. The suggested answers to these quandaries number in the hundreds, but one area unique to academia and nonprofit organizations exists: the intersection of IT and RA. They can provide those answers with a novel concept of using data and dashboards as tools for employees who demonstrate the answer to their needs, meaning, and value.

Over the last 20 years, new Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools have been developed and rolled out to universities in support of their research enterprise, leading to an abundance of data. Data is collected to serve agency needs, audit needs, and to create internal dashboards and these uses are well documented. However, leaders – ranging from supervisors to vice presidents of research – can use data in new ways to not only demonstrate the quantitative health of the organization but also give employees a reason to stay engaged with the organization and then remain because they are motivated to serve.

Employees who want to know the social impact of research or understand their work is meaningful can benefit from a summary of individual data points and discussing how that data can be transferred into qualitative stories of positive outcomes. In the recent updates to the Carnegie Classifications for Institutes of Higher Education, the American Council on Education stated universities should get away from simply presenting the numbers and begin telling the stories about what those numbers mean. Those stories are beneficial in demonstrating the value of research administrators working behind the scenes. Although Research Administrators may never fully escape the pressures of deadlines and regulations, they can demonstrate the broader value of their work by showcasing the journey of the research they support. This includes highlighting how projects have meager beginnings, securing funding with pre-award support and maintaining compliance through monitoring and review boards. These

efforts underscore a partnership that creates real societal impact and extends well beyond routine tasks. An example of how this can be accomplished using data is to show the number of submissions and then tie that to the amount of funding received as well as the amount of spending that occurred at the university’s municipal level. Presenting how $5,000 or $5,000,000 was spent in your city or region can have a real impact on employees who may be having a hard day or don’t how to explain to their family why RA is important. The chart below demonstrates an example of quantitative metrics that tell an impactful, qualitative story of research administrator work.

For managers and leaders wanting to demonstrate employee value and increase retention, data can help in making real-time and strategic decisions but can be a double-edged sword. Unfiltered and accurate data can help identify areas and often employees that need attention. If an employee is underperforming, the data can be used to help find areas of weakness which can be used to bolster that employee before there is a “major” career issue that may result in missed opportunities or termination. Poor timeliness can be an indicator of needed training or

lack of confidence. A proactive leader can use this data to help address performance issues and invest in employees, retaining them as valuable team partners, instead of seeking more punitive options.

Another way that data can support employees is by identifying outliers and ensuring that the focus remains on the overall positive outcomes of the team. While it is important to address outliers, a single negative interaction with a customer or faculty member should not overshadow the consistent performance of a good employee. Data can help managers demonstrate that an employee simply had a bad day, allowing the conversation to remain constructive and focused on resolving the issue rather than veering into a narrative that “everything is broken.” This approach fosters a collaborative environment where both supervisors and staff work together to maintain and improve performance.

At a more tightly focused team level, data can be used in review processes and help set reasonable workloads. Leaders who do not have access to quantitative data may inadvertently assign unbalanced workloads to exceptional employees. While this may work for leaders looking to “get the job done” during periods of employee leave or hiring transitions, it

Figure 1. Example of quantitative metrics

Figure 2. Distribution of proposal assignment by job titles and position tenure at UTRGV

Staff communication (both written and verbal) was very clear throughout the process

Staff effectively answered my questions and/or resolved unexpected issues

Staff were professional by demonstrating appropriate technical skills, ethical standards, and courteous behavior in the workplace

Staff responded in a timely manner throughout the process

Staff were knowledgeable

may eventually lead to burnout among your best employees, causing them to seek employment elsewhere. By using data to balance the workload and ensure that it is as equitable as possible, leaders can ensure their best employees are not inadvertently punished. This approach fosters a more collaborative and supportive environment, strengthening partnerships within the team.

Work with the data that exists, and if data supporting employee well-being doesn’t exist, create a new source. Suggestion boxes, when used correctly, can provide direct lines between employees and leaders, and if used anonymously, they can be an unfiltered communication tool. Suggestion boxes date back over more than a few hundred years, but the value endures. With hybrid and remote offices, it may be harder to have a single location, like the breakroom where employees can speak up. Making a digital suggestion box, which can be used from anywhere in the world, can be a great tool for collecting meaningful and actionable data when implemented.

In conclusion, integrating data and visible metrics within higher education, IT, and research administration is not just an opportunity— it’s a necessity. For nearly two decades, employees and leaders have adapted to the evolving demands of electronic research administration. Leaders can foster a more supportive and motivating work environment by using data to tell impactful stories, balance workloads, and provide constructive feedback.

This approach addresses the challenges posed by the Great Resignation while aligning with the aspirations of a workforce that seeks purpose and

Staff communication (both written and verbal) was very clear throughout the process

and/or resolved unexpected issues

impact. The question is no longer whether we can afford to use data for engagement and retention but whether we can afford not to. Everyone can leverage the power of data to transform workplaces into thriving hubs of innovation, collaboration, and growth, because when employees are engaged, institutions succeed and communities benefit. N

Reference

Muscanell, N. (2024, February 5). The teaching and learning workforce in Higher Education, 2024. EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/2024/the-teaching-and-learning-workforce-in-higher-education-2024/introduction-and-key-ﬁndings

Arya Singh, MS, is the UTRGV Assistant Vice President for Research Analytics. Singh leads the development, management, and maintenance of data solutions for institutional research metrics and key performance indicators. A computer engineer, Singh holds degrees from the University of Rajasthan and Texas State University. Singh has also served as Sr. Director for Research Computing and Business Intelligence services at UTSA overseeing all aspects of technology for the enterprise. He can be reached at Arya.Singh@UTRGV.edu.

Thomas B. Spencer, PhD, MBA, is the Associate Vice President for Research Operations and Associate Professor of Health Sciences in the Department of Health and Biomedical Sciences at University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. He has worked in Academia and Research Administration for 23+ years, at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Johns Hopkins Research Administration master’s degree program. Thomas currently is a member of the Board of Directors for NCURA. He can be reached at Thomas.Spencer@UTRGV.edu.

Overall, I had a positive experience

Staff effectively answered my questions

2025 UNIFORM GUIDANCE DESK REFERENCE

This handy reference includes the regulatory updates issued April 2024, OMB FAQS and Key Revisions issued January 2025. Bulk Pricing Available. Order Yours!

NCURA Education Scholarship Tips

By Sarah Oliphant

From the time I received my undergraduate degree I knew I wanted to pursue a master’s degree. I was not sure what direction I wanted to go in, so I waited, and I am very glad I did. I started working in research administration in July of 2018 after a classmate told me about a position that had just opened in their sponsored research office. I had no idea what I was getting into, but I went from working in a law firm as a paralegal to research administration as a pre-award research administrator and I have never looked back. After doing the job for five years, I finally knew what master’s degree I wanted.

I started researching colleges that offered a master’s degree in research administration (MRA) and decided to submit an application to the University of Central Florida (UCF). They had excellent reviews on their MRA program and many of my colleagues spoke highly of their program as well. UCF has two options for the Research Administration program, a certificate which is a one-year program and a master’s which is a two-year program. I initially applied to and was accepted into the certificate program and then transferred over to the master’s program. It has been a very rewarding and educational experience. During and after every class, there has always been something that I have been able to apply in my day-to-day job.

I highly recommend those in research administration to pursue educational opportunities because every encounter I have had in furthering my own knowledge in this profession has greatly benefited me, both professionally and personally. Here are some tips for applying to the NCURA Education Scholarship Fund:

• Consider where you would like to go in your career and show that you are passionately pursuing that goal. Having a solid direction for your career will dictate your success.

• Think about how the program you select is currently equipping you to be and do better in your chosen profession and how it will benefit you in the future.

• Look at how you can give back to the Research Administration community and how you can mentor those new to this career path. For community support to be effective, we have to give back just as those before us supported us.

• Give yourself plenty of time to think about and respond to each section. Also allow others to provide critical and honest feedback. In order to provide the best responses, this should not be a rushed process.

• Get involved with NCURA as soon as possible! To date I have not been involved as I would have liked to but moving forward that is a goal of mine. This article is my first opportunity to give back and I am happy to take it!

To increase your chance of being awarded the NCURA Education Scholarship, give yourself dedicated time and space to carefully go through the application with intentionality so you can provide well thought out responses showing your commitment to the research administrator profession and community. I am extremely grateful for being selected for this scholarship and the blessing it has been to me. I look forward to meeting my classmates and future scholarship winners face-to-face at upcoming NCURA conferences! N

Sarah Oliphant is a Fall 2024 NCURA Education Scholarship recipient and a Pre-Award Research Administrator for Texas A&M University. She started at the University Central Florida in Summer of 2023 and is expected to graduate in Spring of 2025 with a Master’s in Research Administration. She can be reached at smaes88@tamu.edu.

WHOSE GOT GUIDANCE?:

Results from the ARIO/COGR Survey of Research Integrity Officials on the Final ORI Research Misconduct Rule

By Kristin West and Lauran Qualkenbush

On September 17, 2024, the Department of Health Human Services’ Office of Research Integrity (ORI) issued an updated version of the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct (“Final Rule”) (2024). To gauge research integrity personnel’s assessment of the Final Rule, the Association of Research Integrity Officers (ARIO) and COGR jointly issued a survey designed to determine which provisions of the Final Rule require additional clarification or guidance from ORI, the research integrity officer (RIO) community (“Community”), or both. COGR and ARIO sent the survey to their members and requested one response per institution. One hundred seventy-seven responses were received, consisting of ninety-one complete responses and eighty-six partial responses.

Key Survey Findings

Overall, survey responders sought additional guidance from ORI, the Community, or both for most newly defined terms and virtually all of the Final Rule’s new policy and institutional requirements.

• Defined Terms: Responders selected “accepted practices of the relevant research community, “institutional record,” and “recklessly” as the terms most requiring additional clarification.

• Formal Assessment Phase: Seventy percent of Responders requested guidance on the rule’s new formal assessment phase, but they were fairly evenly split on whether that guidance should come from ORI, the Community, or both.

• Requirements for the Inquiry and Investigation Phases: Responders identified specifications for developing an institutional record and the requirement to pursue leads as top priorities for ORI and/or Community guidance.

• Early Implementation: Fifty-eight percent of responders stated that their institutions would not implement the Final Rule prior to January 1, 2026, the date on its requirements become effective.

Detailed survey demographics and findings are presented in the following graphs and charts.

Survey Demographics

Nearly three-quarters of Responders were from public institutions, and 87.5% of responding institutions were colleges/universities. Sixty-eight percent of individuals who completed the survey were RIOs and over 40% had one to five years of experience handling research misconduct allegations at their institution.

Figure 1. Number of Research Misconduct Inquiries Under PHS Policy at Institution

Inquiries that Progressed to Investigation

Table of Newly Defined Terms for which >50% of Responders Indicated ORI and/or Community Guidance was Necessary.

Defined Terms

The Final Rule added eleven newly defined terms. The majority of Responders thought no additional guidance was required for the terms “Institutional Certifying Official” and “Institutional Deciding Official,” but Responders split evenly on whether “Assessment” and “Intentionally” required clarification.

Policy and Institutional Requirements

The Final Rule added significant new policy and process provisions. Figure 3 details provisions for which more than 50% of Responders sought ORI and/or Community guidance. The only provision for which the majority of Responders did not request guidance was the requirement to make research misconduct policies publicly available.

Figure 3. Table of Policy and Institutional Requirements for which >50% of Responders Indicated ORI and/or Community Guidance was Necessary.

(§93.305(e))

Fostering a research environment that promotes research integrity (§93.300(c))

Handling allegations involving multiple respondents (§93.305(d))

Requirements for admission statements (§93.317(b))

Confidentiality, including application of need-toknow criteria (§93.106)

Use of a committee, consortium, or other person to conduct research misconduct proceedings (§93.305(f))

Closing cases at assessment, inquiry, or investigation (§93.317)

Figure 2.

Inquiry and Investigation Phases

The Final Rule made substantial changes to the inquiry and investigation phases of research misconduct proceedings, but as shown in Figure 4, Responders did not think that additional guidance was warranted for all new provisions.

Nonetheless, Responders sought ORI and/or Community guidance for several new provisions, particularly the requirement to pursue leads and to maintain an institutional record.

Figure 4. Table of Inquiry/Investigation Requirements for which >50% of Responders Indicated ORI and/or Community Guidance was Unnecessary.

Requirement

RIOs are explicitly permitted to conduct inquiries (§93.307(e)(2)).

Notiﬁcation of whether an investigation is warranted, and relevant provisions of the inquiry report are not required to be provided to complainant. (§93.308(b)).

Persons who may be interviewed as part of the inquiry. (§93.307(e)).

No requirement to conduct a separate inquiry when additional respondents are identiﬁed at inquiry or investigation. (§93.307(c)).

Phase

The same investigation committee may investigate multiple respondents with separate determinations and reports. (§93.310(c)(3)).

A complainant is not required to be provided with a copy of the draft investigation report. (§93.312(b)).

Respondents may not be present for witness interviews but must receive a copy of the interview transcript. (§93.310(g)(5)).

New role of Deciding Ofﬁcial with speciﬁed duties. (§93.314).

How ARIO and COGR Plan to Use the Survey’s Results

The survey demonstrates that the individuals who are responsible for developing and administering research misconduct policies and procedures have numerous questions about implementing the Final Rule’s terms and requirements. Additionally, it makes clear that individuals are seeking not just ORI’ guidance, but guidance from the Community on understanding and implementing the Final Rule. ARIO and COGR plan to communicate the survey results to ORI in an effort to assist the agency in developing guidance materials, and they will also use the results to help shape the Community guidance RIOs have requested. N

Figure 5. Table of Inquiry/Investigation Requirements for which >50% of Responders Requested ORI and/or Community Guidance.

Reference

Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, 89 F.R. 76280 (Sept. 17, 2024) (codiﬁed at 42 C.F.R. pt. 93). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/09/17/2024-20814/public-health-service-policies-on-research-misconduct

Requesting Guidance from

Requirement to pursue leads Investigation (§93.310(j))

Detailed speciﬁcations for developing & maintaining institutional record Inquiry (§§93.220, 93.307(g) & 93.309)

Detailed speciﬁcations for development, maintenance, & transmittal of institutional record

Detailed speciﬁcations for the Investigation report

Detailed speciﬁcations for the Inquiry report

(§§93.220, 93.313, 93.316)

(§93.313)

(§93.309)

Kristin (Kris) West is the Director for Research Compliance and Ethics at COGR, an association of over 220 research universities and affliated academic medical centers and research institutes. She provides regulatory analysis and advice in the areas of human and animal research regulation, biosafety, conficts of interest and commitment, research integrity, and research security. She can be reached at kwest@cogr.edu.

Lauran Qualkenbush is the Senior Director for Research Integrity and Training and the Research Integrity Offcer (RIO) at Northwestern University. She oversees the Offce for Research Integrity which responds to allegations of research misconduct and the Offce for Research training unit. She has been involved in research integrity and the responsible conduct of research for over 20 years. Lauran is a founding member and the current President of the Association of Research Integrity Offcers (ARIO). She has been a teaching RIO for the HHS ORI RIO boot camps and has served on multiple HHS ORI and NSF grant review panels. She can be reached at lhaney@northwestern.edu.

THE NCURAApp!

Take 5 minutes a day for your professional development –be informed and inspired with new articles posted daily to the NCURA App!

Reading is, and always has been, the habit of the highly successful.

Learn

Be Inspired

Gain New Perspectives

Available for iOS and Android devices! “NCURA” in your app store or use the QR code to take you directly there!

Research Knows No Borders; Does Export Control?

By Maria Marti Prieto and Sia Gosheva-Oney

The cross-border nature of research, spanning Europe and the USA, reflects the concept that “research knows no boundaries.” Take Switzerland as an example—given its central location within Europe and its robust research and innovation partnerships with both the USA and EU member states, cross-border research activities are a natural and a very welcome outcome. In most cases, this is an advantageous aspect of international collaborations, fostering research and innovation around the globe. In some other cases, however, the seamless flow of ideas across countries can introduce certain complexities related to export control regulations. These are put in place to ensure that sensitive technologies and knowledge do not cross borders unchecked, balancing the openness of research with national and international security concerns. But why? Why is it so important to know what (or who) leaves and what (or who) enters a country? The answer is rather complicated: it is because certain know-how could have multiple applications. May we introduce— the important concept of dual use research!

The idea behind dual use research considers the scenario where some of said knowledge could potentially be used for both beneficial and harmful purposes. However, this is a very broad definition that would imply that almost everything could be considered dual use. For this reason, one can find in the literature different proposals of the dual use definition, a topic that has been discussed within the research community in the field of ethics and research integrity.

However, it is not the purpose of this article to go deeper into this discussion but to actually provide practical information about how export control and dual use research can appear in the daily life of a research administrator. Therefore, we are going to use the definition of the European Commission, which is also one of the most used: “Dual-use items are goods, software and technology that can be used for both civilian and military applications.” Some examples of dual-use goods could be night vision technology, global positioning satellites, virus samples or chemical agents.

But how is this related to researchers, research managers and administrators, and why should we be (very) aware of it? Enters export control! Simply put, the moment a researcher leaves the country, in which they conduct research, an international legislation is automatically evoked: less important is what leaves the country, if this is a device, a software, a new technology, or even just the person carrying their knowledge in their head. What is actually important is whether the exports can have an adverse impact on society, if these are used in a harmful manner (see above dual use potential). Five big Ws should be asked to discover whether an item could potentially be subject to export control:

• Where is an item being imported from?

• Where is an item being exported to?

• What is being exported?

• Who receives the export? The end user of the items needs to be known.

• Why? What is the end purpose – how will export controlled items be used?

Cartoon: Stephan Lütolf

The item, along with the individuals and institution behind it—and by extension, the country—would only be safe to export if all five of these critical “W” questions are deemed non-problematic.

Long story short, export control is an international legal instrument that controls cross-border exchange of dual-use items and war materials. As such, public institutions need to observe and comply with national and international export control rules. Which regulation applies will depend on the country where said Institution is based. For instance, EU export control is regulated by (EU) 2021/821 although it also reflects commitments agreed upon in key multilateral export control regimes. In Switzerland, export control is regulated by the Goods Control Act and Ordinance, the War Material Act and und ordinance, and the Embargo Act. In the USA, these correspond to the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), and the Embargo laws of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Many of our NCURA colleagues have written about export control in the USA, therefore we are not going to dig deeper in the topic, but we encourage you to take a look at their articles.

As research managers dealing with international research collaborations, we might not be able to be experts in this topic, but we at least require some understanding on its implications. When an international research contract lands on our desk, the big Ws are a great tool to start with. Unless the answers to these questions set a clear “green light,” start asking follow-up questions and dig deeper. Go to your PI, go to your export control office, go to your legal office. Don’t be afraid to ask the tough questions. It’s for the sake of all of us! N

References

Export control – Staffnet | ETH Zurich

Export Control Basics

Dual Use Science and Technology, Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction (Springer Books) Seumas Miller. Dual Use Science and Technology, Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction | SpringerLink

https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/help-exporters-and-importers/exporting-dual-useitems_en

The Untold Challenges of Shipping Dual-Use Technology - TecEx

Maria Marti Prieto is a research administrator from Barcelona, who now lives in Switzerland. In her current role at EU GrantsAccess, a joint offce of the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich, she advises researchers regarding competitive funding and negotiates research contracts. She is also passionate about innovation and technology development. You can reach her at maria.marti@sl.ethz.ch.

Sia Gosheva-Oney is a research advisor and project manager at EU GrantsAccess. She advises researchers on EU and US funding opportunities and negotiates research agreements. Sia recently graduated from a Master of Advanced Studies in International Governance and Law, she researched the similarities and differences in the negotiation of research agreements between US and EU research institutions. Sia serves on the editorial board of the NCURA Research Management Review (RMR). You can reach her at sia.gosheva@sl.ethz.ch.

RESEARCH ASSOCIATE

Kennedy Krieger, a leader in pediatric healthcare, seeks a Research Associate to provide expertise, oversight and implementation support within two functional areas.

The primary area is the Department of Research Administration, acting as the designated institutional lead administrator to manage the process for relying on review of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) other than the Johns Hopkins Medicine IRB. The secondary area is the Center for Genetic Muscle Disorders as the primary regulatory affairs administrator providing guidance on a day-to-day basis with respect to the conduct of their human research programs.

QUALIFICATIONS:

• Master’s in Research, Legal, Scientifc or related technical feld; doctorate preferred

• 8 years of experience in regulatory affairs or human subjects’ research oversight at an active academic health center, university or government agency that includes overseeing the approval, implementation and conduct of human subjects research protocols.

• Certifed in Healthcare Research Compliance (CHRC), Certifed IRB Professional (CIP) or related certifcation preferred

Salary: $72,000 - $115,000

At Kennedy Krieger, we serve children and families in need of our care 24/7, 365 days a year. We’re passionate about building resources to fuel groundbreaking research, innovative treatments and life-changing education, all in the name of transforming the lives of children with disorders of the brain. To join our team and make a difference in their lives, visit:

https://jobs-kennedykrieger.icims.com/ Search for Job ID #11625

Equal Opportunity Employer, M/F/D/V.

Forging

in Pre-Award and Post-Award Administration STRONG PARTNERSHIPS

By Laura Kingsley

Adynamic and strong partnership between pre- and post-award colleagues is critical to an institution’s successful sponsored projects’ operation. In addition to the well-known cost principles of allowability, allocability, and reasonableness, other areas should be discussed between pre- and post-award colleagues.

Practicality

Asking, “Is this practical?” is a good starting question to avoid significant over or underspending. For example, is it practical to expect that a large technical team can be recruited and hired within the first two months of a project? Is it practical to expect many subcontracts to be issued, executed, and active within six months of award receipt? Preand post-award administrators can discuss reasonable expectations with known institutional practices, strengths, and challenges to help researchers build a more practical budget that can be adhered to more easily.

Consistency

Pre- and post-award administrators must be on the same page about how expenses, agreements, and rates are consistently charged at institutions to ensure consistency and that exceptions are justified and documented. Failing to recognize an incorrect indirect cost rate in the proposal budget or misidentifying the relationship type (subrecipient vs. contractor) can lead to post-award rebudgeting and project delays. These issues require obtaining internal and external approvals after the fact. As federal agencies and institutions decide how and when to apply new regulations, it is essential to know when institutional changes go into effect and under what circumstances.

Risk mitigation

One of the areas that should be at the forefront of all research administrators’ minds is how to mitigate risk for the institution. Understanding the risk tolerance of an institution and its leadership is also crucial in guiding research administration decisions across all levels. Are issues found during subrecipient monitoring activities being addressed in subaward selection for new project proposals or subcontract agreements? Are

there private sponsors who are routinely delinquent in paying invoices or are undergoing bankruptcy proceedings? Is that being shared with prospective applicants pursuing the same funding sources? While it can be challenging to predict some bad outcomes, preventing recurring issues can be achievable by sharing documented issues.

Communication

Pre- and post-award administrators cannot effectively partner with one another without effective, consistent, and open communication. Strong communication ensures that processes and handoffs are done seamlessly, issues are addressed promptly, and new requirements are noticed and applied proactively. For example, pre-award administrators may see changes to a sponsor’s prior approval threshold or an additional restriction included in an award notice. This information would be critical to share with post-award colleagues to ensure compliance with the award’s terms and conditions. Building rapport with colleagues, especially those who work in different teams or offices, can take time. Meetings and phone calls can build trusting work relationships faster than emails alone.

It is good practice for offices and departments to regularly evaluate their research administration policies and procedures to ensure both pre- and post-award positions are being leveraged to their strengths. Institutional leaders can promote and encourage a culture of transparency and support, fostering an environment that allows partnerships to grow and thrive. Mutual accountability between pre- and post-award administrators is necessary so colleagues are not constantly blamed. The more colleagues see each other as one team rather than individuals working in siloed tasks, the more resilient and compliant an institution will likely be in research administration. N

Laura Kingsley, MPH, CRA, is the Director of the Office of Sponsored Programs at the University of Pittsburgh. She served on NCURA’s Board of Directors from 2021 to 2024 and currently serves on its Research Program Committee. She is also a traveling faculty member and can be reached at laura.kingsley@pitt.edu.

User-friendly dashboards and conﬁgurable workﬂows for smoother program management

Transparent project visibility across your entire organization

Over 700 clients in higher education, healthcare, and more Accurate, hassle-free compliance and reporting every step of the way

The most trusted name in research and grant administration software

Full research lifecycle from pre-award to closeout

MAXIMIZING PARTNERSHIPS TO ELEVATE YOUR SUCCESS AS A RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR

By Robyn Cooper

Reaching that next level of success for most Research Administrators comes down to partnerships. Of course, your knowledge, skills, and experience contribute to that success. However, partnering with others and showing and sharing your value with others while creating impactful outcomes will advance you to that next level of success as a Research Administrator. You can do this by forming partnerships with other individuals, teams, committees, or organizations. So, what exactly does this look like? How can one initiate a partnership? What are pitfalls to avoid? And what are best practices for a sustainable partnership? You will find answers to these questions throughout this article, but first, let us start by defining a partnership.

Partnership Ingredients

A partnership, per the Cambridge dictionary is, “An agreement between organizations, people, etc. to work together” (Cambridge University Press, 2025). When I think about partnerships, the first thing that usually comes to mind is an agreement between organizations. But, as the Cambridge dictionary shows us, and as I have experienced, partnerships also happen when people work together. To further add to this meaning, Walter Leal Filho cites in his article, The added value of partnerships in implementing the UN sustainable development goals, Sondermann and Ulbert define partnerships as, “formal relationships that bring together multiple and diverse stakeholders and provide a systemic arrangement to share resources to achieve a common goal” (Walter Leal Filho a b, 2024). There are so many opportunities for Research Administrators to partner with multiple and diverse people to contribute our knowledge, skills, and experience to achieve common goals. Let us explore what this looks like for us as Research Administrators.

The Partnership Experience

I along with so many others in Region V have experienced what a partnership looks like and the impact that it has had for so many Research Administrators. In 2024, our Region V Chair, Sheleza Mohamed, partnered with members from the Education Committee, Program Committee, the Regional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee, and the National Select Committee for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion to plan for the Region V Annual Meet-

ing. These partnerships that Sheleza formed showed a commitment to growth for the Region and for the National Council of University or Research Administrators (NCURA) as a whole and laid the groundwork for her predecessors to do the same. Each of these committees consists of individuals just like yourself. We came together as a group with diverse backgrounds to achieve a shared goal. Our goal for this meeting, and our charge from the Region V Chair, was to create an inclusive and accessible event for all to be able to “Stand in Your Light,” which was the theme of last year’s meeting. As

“One of the very first steps that one can take to start a partnership is by volunteering.”

a Research Administrator, I was able to contribute by volunteering to be a part of multiple committees, attending meetings, and sharing my thoughts, experiences, and expertise during these meetings and while attending the conference. Every individual person from these committees had the opportunity to do the same. We were multiple stakeholders sharing our different perspectives to achieve our shared goal. This allowed us all the opportunity for personal and professional growth by learning from each other and implementing what we have learned. This also set the stage for an inclusive and accessible culture for years to come. If you attended the Region V Annual Meeting, you have experienced the outcome of partnerships.

Initiating a Partnership

One of the very first steps that one can take to start a partnership is by volunteering. There are many different volunteer opportunities within NCURA that will allow individuals to meet, collaborate, and take part in or

form their own partnerships with others. Volunteering leads to networking, and networking with a purpose lead to more opportunities to form partnerships and advance in one’s career. A few of the ways that I have volunteered, and others can too, include presenting at NCURA National and Regional conferences, Regional Lunch and Learn series, NCURA campus liaison, and Program Committees for upcoming annual meetings.

There are also several ways to volunteer at the National or Regional Annual Meetings. These include being at the registration table to help the attendees, presenting your knowledge, skills, and experience during a session, directing the attendees towards the location of their next session, and so many other opportunities for introverts and extroverts. Speaking as an introvert, volunteering at the registration table is a great start as it allows one to get to know more people while having a few moments of 1:1 conversations with those people to learn about where they are from, what area of Research Administration do they work in, are they presenting at this conference, and of course assist them with getting registered and informing them of the upcoming events for the week.

As you meet new people, you can identify or take note of any opportunities for partnerships. This could include getting an understanding of the work that different individuals or groups are working on and any new or best practices that you can learn from each other. When I was studying for the Certified Financial Research Administrator (CFRA) exam and Certified Research Administrator (CRA) exam, I partnered with individuals and teams inside and outside my organization to share knowledge and best practices amongst each other. I now have both certifications. Another opportunity for partnerships is speaking with people that are on or have been on committees that may be of interest to you. Within those committees, identify the value and impact of a shared goal and seek to partner with members outside of that committee. For volunteer opportunities within NCURA, the requestor will usually provide the “need-to-know” information prior to volunteering and there are always people available to answer any questions that you may have.

Partnership Roadblocks: Avoiding Common Pitfalls

There are a couple of things to be mindful of as you are seeking and forming partnerships. Stephen R. Covey writes in, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: The Infographics Edition, “The person who is truly effective has the humility and reverence to recognize his own perceptual limitations and to appreciate the rich resources available through interaction with the hearts and minds of other human beings. That person values the difference because those differences add to his knowledge, to his understanding of reality. When we’re left to our own experiences, we constantly suffer from a shortage of data” (Covey, 2015).

Avoid the following:

1. Working in silos - Be prepared not only to contribute to a partnership, but to gain from it as well, such as additional resources, knowledge, and skills.

2. Dominating the partnership - Expressing, “who is in charge” and not allowing all to contribute or restricting how much one contributes can diminish the partnership before it has a chance to take off.

3. Being closed-minded - When we open our minds to partner with others inclusively and equitably, it allows us to broaden our perspective and gain additional data that will help us and our partners to analyze problems and make better decisions to reach our shared goals.

“VOLUNTEERING LEADS TO NETWORKING, AND NETWORKING WITH A PURPOSE LEAD TO MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO FORM PARTNERSHIPS AND ADVANCE IN ONE’S CAREER.”

Partnership Best Practices

When forming and participating in a partnership, it is important to do the following to ensure a successful partnership:

1. Know your goals (shared and individual) – Think about the outcome or results that you want out of a partnership. As you come together to form partnerships, decide on what is the collective goal and ensure that this aligns with your individual goals.

2. Communication – Partnerships are at a minimum, a 2-way street. You must be comfortable sharing your goals and trusting that you will help each other to achieve those goals.

3. Foster a safe and trusted environment – This allows for more effective engagement and innovative discussions that could work towards achieving your common goals and be sustainable for all involved.

4. Show mutual respect and recognize everyone’s contributions – This is a crucial step in having a sustainable partnership and will empower all involved to reach that next level of success. Contributions show the value that each partner provides and the impact that they have made.

Conclusion and Your Next Steps

Partnerships are an integral part of elevating one’s career. There are many ways to form partnerships including volunteering and networking with intention. Knowing what to look for in a partnership, including pitfalls to avoid and best practices, provides you with a starting point to elevate your success as a Research Administrator through partnerships. Unfortunately, only a select few will have the courage to take action. If you want to take your career to that next level of success, I have a simple challenge for you. Respond to the next NCURA email blast regarding a call for volunteers and sign up. Let me know what you signed up for and how it went! N

Robyn Cooper, MBA, PMP, CRA, CFRA, CCHWI, CCHW, is the Senior Government Grants Administrator in the Office of Funded Programs with the American Heart Association. She currently serves on NCURA’s National Select Committee for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and volunteers for various activities within NCURA Region V. She can be reached at Robyn.Cooper@heart.org.

References Cambridge University Press. (2025). Dictionary, Cambridge Business English. Retrieved from Partnership | Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/partnership?q=Partnership Covey, S. R. (2015). The 7 Habits of HIghly Effective People: The Infographics Edition. Salt Lake City: Mango Publishing Group, a division of Mango Media Inc.

Filho, Walter Leal, et al (2024). The added value of partnerships in implementing the UN sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol. 438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140794

NIH’s Implementation of the U.S. Government Policy on Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential

By Kristin H. West and Sherry Bohn

On January 10, 2025, NIH published Guide Notice NOT-OD-25-061 (2025 [hereinafter cited as “New Policy”]) to detail its implementation of the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s U.S. Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential (PEPP) (Executive Office of the President, 2024b) and the companion Implementation Guidance for the United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential, May 2024 (Executive Office of the President, 2024a, [hereinafter cited as “Implementation Guidance”]). The New Policy sets forth processes for institutions and funding agencies to identify, assess, and mitigate risks associated with research that involves certain pathogens that, through misuse, could cause significant societal harm.

The New Policy (effective May 6, 2025) vastly expands the number of biological agents, toxins, and experimental categories that require institutional and agency review (“Covered Research”) and places substantial new burdens on researchers, institutional biosafety review entities (IREs), and research administrators to ensure appropriate review, risk/benefit assessment, risk mitigation plan development, and communication with federal funding agencies.

Since the New Policy’s initial publication, the American Biological Safety Association (ABSA) and the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) have been working together to analyze its requirements and communicate with NIH and the Office of Science and Technology Policy to learn more and to alert them to questions and concerns.

Although the New Policy applies to all federal agencies that conduct or fund Covered Research, institutions have been especially eager to see NIH’s implementation plan because it funds the bulk of Covered Research. This article focuses on NIH’s implementation by discussing the New Policy’s expanded scope and requirements and proposing a possible team approach to implementation.

The New Policy’s Expanded Scope

The New Policy and Implementation Guidance supersede the “Federal DURC Policy” (Executive Office of the President of the United States, 2012), the “Institutional DURC Policy” (Executive Office of the President of the United States, 2014), and the “P3CO Framework” (Executive Office of the President, 2017). It combines the current U.S. government DURC and potential pandemic pathogens policies and establishes two categories of regulated research: Category 1 (DURC) research and Category 2 (PEPP) research. It prohibits federal funding for Category 1 or 2 research in the following countries of concern: North Korea, Iran, Russia, China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela.

Institutional IREs can expect a substantial increase in the protocols for which they are required to perform at least an initial evaluation.

Category 1 research encompasses a vastly expanded number of biological agents and toxins and additional categories of experimental outcomes. Significantly, the New Policy requires institutional review of research that uses Select Toxins in amounts below certain thresholds which current DURC policies exclude from review (see, e.g., Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins [2005a]; Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins, [2005b]; Select Agents and Toxins, [2005]; HHS Select agents and Toxins [2005]). Similarly, Category 2 research covers more broadly defined categories of biological agents/toxins and experimental outcomes. Accordingly, institutional IREs can expect a substantial increase in the protocols for which they are required to perform at least an initial evaluation. The New Policy details review processes, roles and responsibilities; risk-benefit assessment; and mitigation requirements and requires institutions to make their review processes publicly available. It continues the current requirement that institutions establish an IRE (which may be the Institutional Biosafety Committee) and name an Institutional Contact for Dual Use Research (ICDUR) – an individual designated to serve as the institution’s internal resource and funding agency liaison regarding DURC/PEPP. However, the IRE and ICDUR have increased responsibility under the New Policy

NIH Notice Requirements

NIH will apply the New Policy to all new and existing NIH-funded research. It also ‘strongly encourages’ but does not require institutions “to implement oversight of non-federally funded Category 1 or Category 2 research conducted in their institutions in accordance with the DURC/PEPP Policy” (NIH, 2025). Institutions must ensure investigators work with IREs to assess research projects at proposal and throughout the research to determine if they potentially involve Category 1 or 2 research. For new research proposals, institutions must provide this assessment to NIH at Just-in-Time. For research projects active on or after May 6, 2025, institutions must provide the assessment to NIH at the time of the next Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) or other non-competing application.

The institution, through an Authorized Organizational Representative, must provide NIH with the following documentation as part of the assessment:

• Confirmation that the IRE reviewed the research project.

• Category determination (including any determination that the project is neither Category 1 or 2 research).

• Risk-benefit assessment of the research.

• Risk mitigation plan for Category 1 or Category 2 research.

NIH will review this documentation and refer any questions or requests for additional information to the institution’s ICDUR. NIH must verify the institution’s categorization and approve any risk mitigation plan before the research can proceed. Category 2 research must also be reviewed and approved by a Department of Health and Human Services departmentallevel committee. After reviews are complete, the funding institute or center makes funding decisions and incorporates necessary terms and conditions in the award notice or contract. Institutions must ensure that Category 1 or 2 research is conducted in accordance with these terms and conditions and the risk mitigation plan. NIH will require funding recipients to report compliance issues and to provide annual reports for Category 1 research, semiannual reports for Category 2 research, and an annual policy compliance assurance.

A Team Approach to Institutional Implementation

The New Policy directs funding applicants and recipients to “develop the necessary infrastructure and personnel” to comply with the New Policy and begin training relevant staff its requirements. Implementation and compliance will require close cooperation and solid lines of communication between researchers, biosafety officers, IREs and research administrators.

Given the May 6, 2025, effective date, institutions must act quickly…

Given the May 6, 2025 effective date, institutions must act quickly to identify all active and upcoming federally-funded research subject to review under the New Policy. This includes research that was previously exempt from review under current requirements because of the small amounts of Select Toxins involved. Questions remain as to whether the NIH Notice falls under the Trump Administration’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order (Executive Office of the President, 2025) which states that agencies should consider postponing until March 21, 2025, the effective date for any rules issued in order to review any questions of fact, law and policy that the rules raise. “Appendix C” of the Implementation Guidance includes a list of all regulated

biological agents and toxins. Institutional biosafety, research administration, and departmental personnel should consider working together to develop a survey to identify researchers using items on this list. Biosafety personnel can work with identified researchers to determine if their research involves covered experimental outcomes and thus requires IRE review, and survey data can be used to estimate review burden and associated personnel need and costs. IREs should consider developing requirements for expected riskbenefit assessments and risk mitigation plans. Research, compliance, biosafety, and IRE personnel also should consider forming a team to review the New Policy and determine what modifications are needed for existing policies and procedures, roles and responsibilities, forms, and associated electronic systems. Institutions should consider the ICDUR’s new, more detailed responsibilities and determine the appropriate administrative level for the individual filling this position.

Kristin (Kris) West is the Director for Research Compliance and Ethics at COGR, an association of over 220 research universities and affiliated academic medical centers and research institutes. She provides regulatory analysis and advice in the areas of human and animal research regulation, biosafety, conflicts of interest and commitment, research integrity, and research security. She can be reached at KWest@cogr.edu.

Sherry S. Bohn, PhD, MSL, CBSP (ABSA), is the Executive Director of the Department of Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) at the University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB). A microbiologist by training, Bohn holds degrees in molecular biology, communication, and law, which gives her a unique perspective on the research compliance landscape. She has worked as a biosafety professional for over 17 years and is currently serving as President of ABSA (American Biological Safety Association) International. She can be reached at sbohn@umaryland.edu.

COGR and ABSA plan to continue their joint efforts to gather additional information about NIH and other agencies’ implementation of the New Policy and educate their members on the policy’s requirements and strategies for successful implementation. N

References

Executive Office of the President of the United States (2025). Regulatory Freeze Pending Review, January 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/regulatory-freezepending-review/

Executive Office of the President of the United States (2024a). Implementation Guidance for the United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential, May 2024. https://aspr.hhs.gov/S3/Documents/USG-DURCPEPP-Implementation-Guidance-May2024-508.pdf

Executive Office of the President of the United States (2024b). United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential, May 2024. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/USG-Policy-forOversight-of-DURC-and-PEPP.pdf

Executive Office of the President of the United States (2017). Recommended Policy Guidance for Departmental Development of Review Mechanisms for Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight, January 9,2017. https://aspr.hhs.gov/S3/Documents/P3CO-FinalGuidanceStatement.pdf

Executive Office of the President of the United States (2014). United States Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern, September 24, 2014. https://aspr.hhs.gov/S3/Documents/durc-policy.pdf

Executive Office of the President of the United States (2012). United States Government Policy for Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern. https://aspr.hhs.gov/S3/Documents/uspolicy-durc-032812.pdf

HHS Select agents and Toxins (Select Agents and Toxins) 42 C.F.R. §73.3(d)(7) (2005). www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/73.3

National Institutes of Health (2025). NIH Implementation of the U.S. Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential (PEPP). Notice Number: NOT-OD-25-061, January 10, 2025. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-061.html

Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins, 7 C.F.R. §331 (2005a). www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/part-331.

Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins, 9 C.F.R. §121 (2005b). www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/part-121

Select Agents and Toxins, 42 C.F.R. §73 (2005). www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/part-73

RESOURCE

Available for immediate download through NCURA’s Online Learning Management System.

UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGING SPONSORED PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AT PREDOMINANTLY UNDERGRADUATE INSTITUTIONS

This PDF resource introduces the framework, key concepts, and practices in effectively managing sponsored programs at Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs). Topics include:

• Organizational Models and Structures

• Roles and Responsibilities

• Regulatory Compliance Requirements

• Pre-Award Services

• Post-Award Support Services

For details and to purchase visit https://onlinelearning.ncura.edu/read-and-explore

Harnessing Challenges in Global Partnerships Research Administration in Europe

The Importance of Working Together

By Kirsi Reyes-Anastacio and Joey Gaynor

When we consider the value of partnerships in research, our natural inclination is to view these through the prism of the research and researchers we support. We recognize that research collaborations can yield ground-breaking results and, as a result, it is something that is actively encouraged by Higher Education Institutions, and by research funding organizations. Are partnerships essential? No, but partnerships can be excellent assets to the institution as they not only advance academic research and promote fruitful collaborative work, they can also be a great source of motivation in the daily work, i.e., from the parameters and procedures put into place making work more streamlined to widening networking possibilities and providing easier access to useful information. As partnerships evolve, they may further develop into expanding future partnerships, projects and collaborations with others who are equally interested in the same issues. However, what is less discussed in the sector, but of equally vital importance, is the partnerships forged between those tasked with supporting this research.

Where are you in the picture?

Depending on where you are in your organization, you may have an active or passive role in partnerships. You may be at the level where decisions are made on what partnerships to pursue and sign off on. Or if at the grass roots level, your unit may be tasked to provide invaluable information that provides the foundation for the partnership through feedback, collecting data and networking with fellow counterparts. Not only are you and your team members seeking out information, but you may at times find yourself being a sounding board for PIs wanting to engage in more ambitious projects and untapped collaborations. As a Research Administrator, it is important to

communicate these to the academic leadership and those organizations who may also have similar concerns and goals. In many cases, because of these findings, partnership development can gain a great deal of momentum Remember, “it takes a village”!

Encountering local and institutional roadblocks

From the European perspective, we are very well-versed with the EU’s framework programmes and its strong emphasis on collaborations in interdisciplinary projects. But what else is out there? How do we deepen the pre-existing connections already made and create new ones? One of the challenges the academic community is interested in is, “what are we not doing enough to engage more actively in pursuing partnerships (both on a PI level and institutional one)?” From the organizations’ perspective, it could be a lack of resources, a lack of knowledge or even a lack of interest.

As PIs in Finland are constantly on the lookout for widening different avenues of funding, the interest in US research collaborations is certainly there. Research Administrators across Finland (as well as our fellow colleagues across other European institutions) often find ourselves thinking about what can we do to support this. There are though a few hurdles. Not only do we have our own national framework and own organization’s priorities to consider first, but we also have EU rules and regulations (which include GDPR and IPR issues). Then again, the US has state and federal laws to abide by. Another perspective that needs to be addressed is that there may be a lack of interest or appeal. Why dive into something which is unfamiliar and stretches our time and resources when things work already on our own respective sides of the pond? Even though Finland produces world class research in topics such as i.e., climate/atmospheric research, quantum

computing, AI, medical research, biomaterials and the Arctic, Finland is still a relatively small country that not many are familiar with. Or is the problem that we have too much information out there that is not being communicated effectively and/or reaching the right target groups widely enough?

Despite these challenges, Finnish Research Administrators are very keen in discussing, sharing and consulting with each other in developing networks and strategic partnerships that have a global impact. We are active in benchmarking and sharing best practices with our Nordic neighbors and other colleagues throughout Europe. Finland is also involved in various outlets that promote partnerships. There is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ cooperation with a select few partnership states in the US as well as the support and promoting of US – Finnish academic research via the Research Council of Finland (NIH and NSF joint calls). Additionally, Research Administrators can liaise and get involved in (FARIA , Finn-ARMA , EARMA and NCURA). Without a doubt these very partnerships can and do bring together some of the best PIs, research groups and Research Administrators in the world together. We must though ask ourselves, how do we improve upon what we already have in place? There is so much to share with one another and it may surprise you that Research Administrators world-wide encounter many shared similar challenges.

“Creating new connections –both locally and globally – and fostering those we already have in place, seems more important now than ever.”

Building partnerships at the macrolevel: a global network of Research Administrators

No Research Administrator is an island. The connections we build, and nurture, are hugely beneficial to our profession, and to our own professional development. For me, NCURA has been a vital resource for building meaningful partnerships. It opened a global network of likeminded professionals, and the opportunities have been endlessly rewarding. In 2024, I had the honor of chairing Region VIII’s Executive and Advisory Committees. In late 2023, we developed a new strategic plan which was implemented the following year. This new five-year roadmap foregrounds partnerships as the bedrock of our region’s sustainability – a unique community of international Research Administrators – and acknowledges that cultivating this network of global professionals can be deeply rewarding not only to individual members, but also to their institutions and the research communities they serve.

Community in Region VIII, the most culturally and geographically diverse of NCURA’s regions, is a lifeline to many professionals, especially to those operating in countries without a national framework or network to support Research Administrators. When developing a new strategy, we recognized the importance of embracing our region’s diversity and wanted to explore the best ways of learning from one another by sharing our collective

experiences. This has been a guiding principle when developing our educational programs, which to date have been aimed at all career stages and catered to professionals based in all types of universities, with particular emphasis on supporting those professionals based in LMICs. We have used this agenda to give our membership opportunities to collaborate, by cocreating and developing content for workshops or training events which is presented to their peers. Meanwhile, creating networking opportunities through NCURA initiatives has established many successful partnerships in our international community, like collaborating on conference presentations, or even co-authoring publications, as this article is a testament to. These partnerships have not been confined to NCURA’s international community only, and many collaborations with our US colleagues have highlighted how much we gain through practising research administration across borders. Partnerships give us our identity as Research Administrators. Professional organizations like NCURA were established and continue to exist due to the community of professionals that built and continue to sustain them. Creating new connections – both locally and globally – and fostering those we already have in place, seems more important now than ever. A shifting geopolitical landscape, a climate crisis, and Generative AI, are just some of the major influences shaping how research will be funded, and how we support that research. Strengthening our transatlantic bonds is especially important, as we still have much to learn from one another. Sharing different perspectives and ways of working will help us to build a new sustainable future for Research Managers. Furthermore, relying on our network of partnerships and bracing for these challenges together reminds us that we are not alone in facing these challenges. We cannot face these headwinds alone, so it is more important than ever to rely on the strength of our community of professionals. N

References

Statistics Finland. (2024). Finland in figures 2024. Finland in Figures. www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/189151/yyti_fif_202400_2024_net.pdf?sequence=1&isAl lowed=y

University of Helsinki (UH). (2025). Strategic partnerships. Networks and Strategic Partnerships. www.helsinki.fi/en/innovations-and-cooperation/international-cooperation/networks-andstrategic-partnerships#:~:text=Currently%20the%20University%20of%20Helsinki, University% 20of%20Nairobi%20in%20Kenya

Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. (2020, September). Partnership states - Finland abroad. Finland in The United States. https://finlandabroad.fi/web/usa/partnership-states

Research Council of Finland (RCF). (2020, October). RCF homepage. https://www.aka.fi/en Finnish-American Research and Innovation Accelerator (FARIA). (2021). FARIA homepage. www.faria.network

Finnish Association of Research Managers and Administrators (Finn-ARMA). (2023, November 6). Finn-ARMA in English. https://wiki.eduuni.fi/display/csctuha/Finnish+Association+of+Research +Managers+and+Administrators

European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (EARMA). (2000-2025). EARMA homepage. https://earma.org/about

Kirsi Reyes-Anastacio, M.Soc.Sc., is a Senior Research Funding Advisor in the Research Funding Services (RFS) unit at the University of Helsinki, Finland. At RFS where the focus is on international research funding, Kirsi’s main responsibilities are to provide pre-award support in finding funding opportunities and hold training and info sessions on various funding tools. She can be reached at kirsi.reyes-anastacio@helsinki.fi.

Joey Gaynor, PhD, is a Senior Research Funding Specialist at Trinity College Dublin, and Past Chair of Region VIII. He is an international grant funding expert and has worked in research development roles in Ireland and the UK. At Trinity, he has sole responsibility for US funding and is a member of the institution’s Knowledge Security Committee. He can be reached at joey.gaynor@tcd.ie.

Research Administrators need to be familiar with

NCURA’s comprehensive resource of all the relevant regulations for grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.

This vital reference distills more than 100 Federal Requirements to help you keep your institution and faculty in compliance. Over 200 pages of important information in an easy to use format that will save countless hours of research. Chapters include:

ORDER YOUR COPY!

Leadership and management are complicated. The “soft stuff” of managing people can be the most challenging aspect. NCURA has a new resource to help!

In this new publication, we discuss the principles of research administration, the art of leadership, the skills of communication, the management of personnel, and the importance of people skills.

TOPICS INCLUDE:

CHAPTER 1: THE CHALLENGE OF RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 2: THE ART OF LEADERSHIP IN RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 3: COMMUNICATION: THE MOST IMPORTANT LEADERSHIP SKILL

CHAPTER 4: CIVILITY AND THE LANGUAGE OF EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

CHAPTER 5: KINDNESS: A COROLLARY TO CIVILITY

CHAPTER 6: WORKING WITH DIFFICULT BOSSES

CHAPTER 7: WORKING WITH DIFFICULT EMPLOYEES

CHAPTER 8: FIGHTING BURNOUT

CHAPTER 9: CLIENT SERVICES AND THE FUNDAMENTALS OF RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 10: RECRUITING AND RETAINING TALENTED STAFF

NONE OF US IS AS SMART AS ALL OF US

By Brianne Carter

Fitting big ideas into standardized templates is the plight of ambitious researchers and of the ancillary systems that support their work. The research can’t come to fruition without such systems, but they act as ‘speedbumps’; collaboration is not only beneficial, but crucial, to navigating through them. The University of Maine flagship campus (UMaine) provides an example. One of its departments, the Advanced Structures and Composites Center (ASCC) is a research center with a growing reputation. Its researchers create 3-D printed houses (Advanced Structures & Composites Center, 2022) and bridge-building systems that fit in a duffel bag (Advanced Structures & Composites Center, 2022 G-ARCH [n.d.]). Another of UMaine’s departments, the Office of Research Administration (ORA), helps make the ASCC’s unique research possible. For a university located in rural New England, which only achieved R1 status a few years ago, the explosive research growth has created unanticipated scenarios. With these increased opportunities come increased challenges in administering proposals and awards. Specifically in the pre-award process, Department and CampusLevel trajectories can easily get off course. Below are examples of partnership successes at UMaine in an ever-changing pre-award landscape.

Background: UMaine and the R1 Explosion Research at UMaine in Orono has taken off in

recent years. UMaine earned an R1 designation— a label that only 3.7% of the degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the U.S. have

(Demeritt, 2022). Increasing annual research expenditures and expanding graduate studies resulted in increasing national recognition for its research (UMaine Research, n.d.). After receiving this designation, UMaine continued its growth, receiving $189 million in external R&D funding in 2023 (The University of Maine) which included the 3D-printed house that captured global attention (Ward, 2022). For the average person, this was impressive; for researchers, it was exhilarating; for Research Administrators (RAs), it was daunting. Increased recognition meant more proposal submissions, which demanded extra time, money, and resources that weren't readily available. This made partnerships between the ASCC and ORA not just useful, but essential.

Pre-Award: Where Partnership is Essential About eighty percent of what I know about the proposal process comes from two sources: my ASCC finance cohorts and the ORA team. My direct supervisors and coworkers in ASCC have taught me the standards for proposal submissions (what a justification needs to include or what a particular PI prefers). ORA supports me in the nuanced practice of proposal submission, answering questions such as:

• When will our institution include the latest fiscalyear raise structure for new submissions?

• How does the UMaine President’s office want to see an anticipated tenure salary?

• Does this requirement in 2 CFR 200 apply to my team’s request for [insert here a bizarre item nobody has ever put into a proposal before]?

My knowledge expands daily thanks to two fundamental qualities present in the ASCC/ORA dynamic: cooperation and respect. Below are three aspects of this partnership that exemplify these elements. Can you see your institution in these examples?

The Department Respects the Workload of Campus Administration.

As contract managers at the department level, the ASCC financial team operates as the first line of defense in proposal development. This team initiates discussions with faculty and uses what they understand about ORA capabilities to triage initial questions and concerns. For example, due to the growing level of complexity found in sponsored proposals for grants and contracts, ASCC has staff who are partially dedicated to proposal development called Contract Managers. These contract managers have experience managing large projects and may have accounting backgrounds that serve as a great foundation for fiscal predictions of expenses proposal budgets need to include to be successful. These staff work collaboratively with the PI to develop proposals, including preparing first drafts on ancillary documents such as current & pending reports, environmental questionnaires, and small business subcontracting plans.

By doing this, ASCC streamlines the process and makes it easier for ORA to review and submit the proposals. This collaborative effort not only enhances the efficiency of our operations but also fosters a strong partnership built on mutual respect and shared goals. Together, we work towards securing the necessary funding to support our research initiatives and drive innovation forward.

The System Administration Values the Efforts of the Department.

Thanks to our dedicated efforts at the ASCC, the ORA's proposal team is willing to assist with lastminute requests whenever possible. It's not uncommon for the Associate Director of ORA or the Assistant Manager of Pre-Award to step in and help ensure a proposal meets a tight deadline. Their willingness to go above and beyond is invaluable.

“NOT A SINGLE PROPOSAL WOULD GET OUT THE DOOR WITHOUT EVERY PERSON … WORKING TOGETHER.”

Without this support and collaboration, our Research Center would have been overwhelmed. The teamwork between ASCC and ORA exemplifies how mutual respect and a shared commitment to excellence can make a significant difference. This partnership allows us to navigate the complexities of proposal submissions smoothly and effectively, increasing our chances to secure the funding needed to advance our research initiatives.

The Department and Campus Administration Implement Best Practices.

The processes of both groups strike a balance between the standardization required in complying with regulations and the flexibility required by the innovations engendered in each new project Maintaining that balance between progress and process requires consistent communication between our teams and other stakeholders.

Some concrete examples of this balanced partnership include:

• ORA hired a staff member to act as a liaison specifically for the ASCC

• To foster transparency and open communication, the ASCC invited ORA to tour its facility.

• ASCC’s Head of Finance was granted additional access to several ORA databases; this allows ASCC to track workflow status without constantly checking with ORA staff about updates.

Conclusion

Not a single proposal would get out the door without every person at our Center (ASCC) and our Campus Administration (ORA) working together. There would be no 3-D printed houses, no bridges in a backpack, and no lessons learned. Growth for our Center and for UMaine

would slow. Partnerships such as these at UMaine are indispensable, and in Research Administration it is absolutely true that none of us is as smart as all of us. N

References

Advanced Structures & Composites Center (2022). BioHome3D. The University of Maine.

https://composites.umaine.edu/advancedmanufacturing/biohome3d

Advanced Structures & Composites Center (n.d.). G-ARCH: Bridge-in-a-Backpack. The University of Maine. https://composites.umaine.edu/civil-infrasructure/bridge-ina-backpack

Advanced Structures & Composites Center (n.d.). Ocean Energy Engineering. –The University of Maine. https://composites.umaine.edu/offshorewind

Civil and Environmental Engineering (n.d.). Habib J. Dagher, Ph. D, P.E. – The University of Maine. https://civil.umaine.edu/faculty/habib-joseph-dagher

Demeritt, Dan (2022, February 3). UMaine ascends to highest tier of national research universities. UMaine News, The University of Maine.

https://umaine.edu/news/blog/2022/02/03/umaine-ascendsto-highest-tier-of-national-research-universities

The University of Maine (2023). 2023 Research Report. https://umaine.edu/research/annual-report

UMaine Research (n.d.). A Carnegie R1 top-tier research–university. The University of Maine. https://umaine.edu/research/r1

Ward, Taylor (Nov 21, 2022). First 100% bio-based 3D-printed home unveiled at the University of Maine. UMaine News. https://umaine.edu/news/blog/2022/11/21/first-100-biobased-3d-printed-home-unveiled-at-the-university-of-maine

Brianne M. Carter, CRA, is Fiscal Officer/Grant Manager II at the UMaineAdvanced Structures & Composites Center (ASCC) in Orono, Maine, and is currently pursuing her MBA at the UMaine Business School. Brianne’s responsibilities include contract management of the Transportation Infrastructure Durability Center (TIDC-UTC) and the Green Engineering & Materials (GEM) programs as well as facilitating proposal development for faculty across the UMaine campus. She can be reached at brianne.carter@maine.edu.

Research Administration in the Middle East and North Africa

POWER IN PARTNERSHIPS

Bridging the Gap Towards Innovation and Success in Research Administration

PBy Reem Jamil Younis

artnerships, a term that can carry an almost esoteric connotation, hold significant practical relevance in professional settings and in particular for the profession of research administration. Partnerships span a wide spectrum of professional relationships, encompassing interpersonal, cross-departmental, inter-institutional, and cross-sectoral relationships. Understanding their dynamics and applications is crucial not only to realizing collaborative teams’ personal, departmental, institutional, and national goals, but also to advancing research administration, and the entire research enterprise.

Types of Partnerships

For research administrators, a project’s lifecycle typically begins with principal investigators (PIs). To ensure that their research projects remain viable, sponsored research offices play a key role in aligning PIs with funder expectations and guiding them through the intricacies of securing funding. Of equally critical importance are the partnerships between pre- and postaward staff, which not only streamline the research management process but allow it to come full circle.

Beyond these intradepartmental collaborations, cross-departmental interactions and relationships between research administrators and other academic support staff—such as finance and human resources—often make or break the academic research cycle. Research administration often extends beyond the formal job description and requires extensive troubleshooting and coordination with these other departments. Partnerships ensure that research projects are supported holistically, from project inception to completion.

In research-intensive institutions, partnerships frequently extend to multiple institutional and international collaborations. These complex projects demand a high level of tact, professionalism, and alignment of diverse institutional processes and governance frameworks. Effective management of such partnerships is key to achieving successful outcomes.

Examples of Effective Partnerships

Saudi Arabia’s Research, Development, and Innovation Authority’s Researchers’ Grants initiative (Research Development and Innovation Authority, 2024)— which funds academic research and innovation projects that address national priorities and strategic objectives—is a notable example of a successful inter-sectoral partnership. This initiative is a synergistic partnership between academic and government sectors with the intention of fostering a positive impact on national objectives.

“Well-executed partnerships can bring about transformative outcomes.”

Another example is the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Research Map portal (Abu Dhabi Media Office, 2024), which was launched in May 2024. Developed through collaboration between public sector agencies, academic institutions, and private stakeholders, this platform serves as a comprehensive hub for information on the country’s research and development (R&D) ecosystem. In an effort to foster national R&D transparency and collaboration it provides access to information about publications, researchers, centers, and policies.

Benefits of Partnerships

As illustrated in the examples above, well-executed partnerships can bring about transformative outcomes. In the context of research administration, the nature of these interpersonal relationships and partnerships is foundational to a productive workplace. By working collaboratively towards the shared goal of high-quality research, PIs, research administrators, and support staff not only organize processes but also enhance the overall quality of the work environment by making it more collegial.

Cross-departmental partnerships promote cross-training and mutual understanding amongst academic support functions by breaking down silos and improving efficiency. Open dialogue channels including feedback between departments allow for process and procedural revisions and improvements, thereby streamlining the research management process as a whole.

Inter-institutional collaborations bring benefits—such as diversity of experiences, improved access to research instrumentation and equipment, and a cultural exchange amongst collaborative teams—that pave the way for future partnerships and thereby provide further opportunities to foster research and innovation.

Challenges in Partnerships

Along with the improved research dynamics and metrics facilitated by local, regional, and international research, collaborations and partnerships bring some challenges. Multi-stakeholder collaborations often involve highly complex collaborative agreements and administrative processes. Various institutions function according to different procedures and timelines. Aligning sponsor requirements with the needs of various awardees and subrecipients is a demanding yet critical task to ensure effective resolution of pre- and post-award processes. Maintaining open communication channels with PIs,

partner institutions, and sponsors is essential to mitigating these challenges. Proactive guidance and coordination ensure the smooth execution of research awards.

Effective partnerships are an integral element in the success of our profession. They enhance our interconnectedness, productivity, and the overall quality of research outcomes and metrics. Research administrators should be proud of enabling these collaborations by navigating complex relationships and processes that are often daunting but ultimately rewarding. The tangible results of these efforts—whether strengthened institutional ties or the materialization of groundbreaking research—reinforces the value of research administration and the importance of fostering meaningful partnerships. N

References

Abu Dhabi Media Office (2024, 10 May). Advanced Technology Research Council launches UAE Research Map to support UAE’s research and development sector. www.mediaoffice.abudhabi/en/technology/advanced-technology-research-council-launches-uaeresearch-map-to-support-uaes-research-and-development-sector

Research Development and Innovation Authority (2024). Empowering research grants for a sustainable future in Saudi Arabia. https://saudiminds.rdia.gov.sa/account/national-priorities

Reem Jamil Younis is an independent R&D consultant based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. Her experience spans higher education, government, and healthcare sectors in the US and in the Middle East. She can be reached at reemyounis@outlook.com.

RESOURCE

The requirements for documenting compensation charges to federal awards are complicated - we have a new resource to help!

This resource provides the framework for understanding the federal requirements for documenting compensation charges to federal awards and the complexities in meeting the requirements, as well as the implications and potential repercussions if not met.

Topics include:

• Requirements of supporting salary charges

• Determining what constitutes compensation

• Documentation and Internal Controls

• Issue and Risks

• Common Audit Findings

• Other considerations

• Example of internal control framework for compensation compliance

Get it here https://onlinelearning.ncura.edu/read-and-explore

In 2025, NCURA will be bringing its Traveling Workshop Series to a city near you!

For current information on open workshop registrations, please visit our website here.

TRAVELING WORKSHOPS

Contract Negotiation & Administration

Departmental Research Administration

Financial Research Administration

Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects Administration

Level II: Sponsored Projects Administration

LOOKING TO FOSTER MORE COLLABORATION AND ENGAGEMENT WITH YOUR TEAM?

NCURA is pleased to o昀er in-person and virtual On-Campus Traveling Workshop trainings. Visit our On-Campus website here or email Gabby Hughes, hughes@ncura.edu to learn more today!

New Orleans, LA

Indianapolis, IN

Atlanta, GA

Salt Lake City, UT

COLLABORATIVE INNOVATION

How Deloitte and Washington State University Partnered to Create a Strategic Grant Forecasting Solution Powered by Workday Adaptive Planning - Part II

By Nigel Chong-You, Christine Galbreath, Gerik Kimble, and Ryan Loftus

Grants forecasting is a major need among higher education institutions that when done, is cumbersome and lacks standardization. Last month’s edition of NCURA Magazine included a description of Washington State University (WSU) and Deloitte’s project to build and implement a grant forecasting solution using Workday and Adaptive Planning. Continuing the discussion, this article elaborates on the strategies that made this collaboration successful.

The Opportunity and Partnership

Upon receiving the call from WSU to collaborate on developing a solution that could benefit the entire Workday Higher Education ecosystem, Deloitte eagerly embraced the opportunity to extend its partnership with WSU into this endeavor. Deloitte team members from the original implementation teams for Workday Finance and Adaptive planning had significant knowledge of WSU’s Foundation Data Model, system configuration, and reporting capabilities and enabled Deloitte to hit the ground running with a design team that had significant institutional knowledge and experience. The benefits of the partnership allowed for an aggressive timeline for design, testing, and implementation.

Implementation Approach and Timeline

Due to the existing relationship between Deloitte and WSU, a six-month timeline was established for the implementation. Deloitte’s initial grants lead from the Workday implementation in 2021 along with the Deloitte Adaptive lead joined experienced business systems analysts for grants and finance from WSU’s Modernization department, creating immediate synergy between the WSU and Deloitte teams.

After the framework of the initial design was established, WSU conducted discovery and design workshops with three colleges across WSU including the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, the College of Veterinary Medicine, and the College of Agriculture, Human and Natural Resources.

During these informative sessions, WSU found that:

• Many Grant Managers used their own Excel templates and pulled data from multiple reports in Workday, in some cases utilizing additional shadow systems.

• The timing of how users forecasted was different – the majority produced forecasts monthly, others bi-monthly, and in some cases “just-in-time’ reporting.

• Within Workday, users already had effective budget-to-actuals reporting, to produce a snapshot for things that have been done but lacked Workday-integrated tools to help answer questions about the future and relied on shadow systems to perform what-if analysis.

• Some Grant Managers were not forecasting regularly due to time constraints and lack of resources.

Overall, the primary pain points illuminated in the then current state processes were:

• Extremely manual process previously managed via offline spreadsheets by Grant Managers.

• A steep learning curve for Grant Managers to effectively forecast for a specific Principal Investigator (PI).

• There was no current connection between forecasts and plan in Workday

• There were disparate tools, offline spreadsheets, and multiple data sources which need to be compiled to produce a forecast.

• PIs that managed grant portfolios across colleges lacked consistent reporting and forecasting across these colleges.

• Grant Managers supporting interdisciplinary projects across departments lacked visibility into forecast information for the grants outside of their college.

In response to this user feedback, the WSU and Deloitte design team adopted an iterative approach of design, configuration, and testing seeking to address the various pain points identified by users.

Change Management and Adoption

Throughout the implementation of this new solution, WSU and Deloitte actively responded to user feedback and provided support to users as they transitioned to the new system. This process involved managing change and accommodating the variety of prior user experiences with grants forecasting. Recognizing the wide variation in users' prior forecasting experience WSU incorporated a user acceptance testing (UAT) phase of the project that included representatives from three colleges with large grant portfolios. During UAT, testers were given access to a prototype of the forecasting model and asked to complete activities related to a variety of testing scenarios simulating typical forecasting activities such as viewing projected balances, entering anticipated budget changes, and editing data points in the salaries projection sheet and reviewing the resulting changes. In addition to providing valuable feedback and identifying updates needed to the model itself, the UAT phase served to build knowledge, skills and enthusiasm among the user group who would eventually become early adopters when the solution

“THIS INTUITIVE SOLUTION FACILITATES ENHANCED DECISIONMAKING THROUGH IMMEDIATE

ACCESS

TO DATA-DRIVEN INSIGHTS AND OFFERS WHAT-IF SCENARIO

PLANNING CAPABILITIES.”

was released to the wider university community. The colleges who participated in UAT were granted early access to the forecasting model during a soft launch one month prior to the official go-live on January 1, 2024. Training materials were created and made available prior to launching the grants forecasting model including live instructor-led training, recorded training, reference guides and office hours to ensure users had access to the support needed to adjust to the new forecasting processes. Additionally, WSU’s Modernization team has invested time in supporting users to understand navigation within Adaptive, provided additional training opportunities to small groups at the college level, and partnered with area finance officers to understand barriers to user adoption and create plans to overcome them, while also receiving and acting on feedback from users.

A final component of the transition to grant forecasting in Adaptive has been consistent, effective communications highlighting the progress of the project, benefits of the new forecasting solution, and positive impacts observed by those who have provided feedback. These efforts have resulted in increasing user adoption across a broad range of colleges large and small.

The Impact

The WSU grants forecasting tool has significantly streamlined the forecasting and planning processes for grants, standardizing how researchers and administrators plan for future funding, promoting efficiency, and providing deeper insights into future research opportunities. It has increased precision with projected amounts for salaries, benefits, and hourly workers, enabling grant managers to better anticipate and prevent overspending. The tool's beauty lies in its ability to provide everyone with the same baseline, reducing mistakes by eliminating the need for different reports and spreadsheets. For grant managers, it has significantly reduced the time and manual effort required to produce reports for their PIs and has provided uniform reporting for large colleges, ensuring that all PIs see the same report. This intuitive solution facilitates enhanced decision-making through immediate access to data-driven insights and offers what-if scenario planning capabilities.

Among the most beneficial features of the new tool is the salaries and benefits sheet, which has helped researchers proactively manage costing. This is particularly useful for researchers managing multiple grants simultaneously, as it allows them to keep up with the numerous costing allocations they need to perform. The tool also enables users to run a dashboard by PI

to view all costing allocations, which inspired the development of similar reports in Workday.

End users have praised the tool's functionality. Some users specifically highlighted the ability to adjust future expenses in real-time during meetings with PIs, instantly see the results in reports, and make changes right away, whether modifying summer salaries or planning travel. Others appreciated the capability of running the report by PI rather than individual grant lines, which helps review staff costing allocations as a unit and aids in making better decisions about staff time allocation, catching potential issues early.

These benefits have enabled some departments to discontinue shadow systems in favor of forecasting in Adaptive, reducing costs to their units and increasing time savings. One department shared that the tool allows them to more easily produce monthly reports for faculty showing projected balances across all their projects in a streamlined format.

Conclusion

WSU's journey with the Grants forecasting solution has been marked by significant positive outcomes, reinforcing the value and success of the partnership. This solution is an industry-leading example of leveraging Adaptive Planning to enhance and maximize an institution's investment in Workday Grants Management for which WSU was recognized as a Finalist for Workday’s Powering Innovation Customer Award in 2024. It also exemplifies how Adaptive Planning can continue to bring value to clients post-implementation. The forecasting solution is now available to over 900 Principal Investigators (PIs) and research administrators across campus and the WSU team is now focused on increasing user adoption across campus and identifying additional enhancements that could be made to the tool. The deployment of the tool has been a great accomplishment for WSU, providing new forecasting capabilities to a broad audience that previously lacked such tools. N

CNOTABLE PRACTICES

Partnerships

ultivating partnerships creates a community of support, enabling enhanced problem-solving and collective resilience as we navigate together. During times of uncertainty, partnerships become even more vital. Strong partnerships allow us to share best practices, mitigate risks, and leverage diverse perspectives to address complex challenges. They foster a sense of shared purpose, ensuring that we are not navigating these challenges in isolation, but rather as a unified force, capable of adapting and thriving amidst change.

Strong partnerships are ones that are consistently dependable and involve credible partners. Research Administrators rely on each other, as well organizations that support research and higher education, such as the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the Association of American Universities (AAU), and the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP).

Notable practices of how institutions mindfully partner to problemsolve together include:

• Participating in COGR and FDP to keep abreast of legislative and regulatory changes, including new sponsor requirements and audit trends.

• Creating partnerships with other organizations to facilitate and support research and sponsored programs.

• Pursuing NIH and NSF programs, like SPAD (Sponsored Programs Administration Development) and GRANTED (Growing Research Access for Nationally Transformative Economic Development), to strengthen regional and national partnerships.

• Developing cross-institutional mentorship programs for supporting new researchers and growing research capacity.

Nigel Chong-You is a Manager in Deloitte's Workday Financials Practice and brings more than 17 years of experience implementing and maintaining enterprise solutions in higher education environments. He can be reached at nchongyou@deloitte.com.

Christine Galbreath is the Grants Work Stream Lead at Washington State University (WSU) and has been a member of WSU’s Modernization Initiative since 2018 managing industry-leading projects and implementing process improvements and efficiencies in Workday for WSU’s research community. She can be reached at christine.galbreath@wsu.edu.

Gerik Kimble is the Executive Director of Business System Operations and Process Improvement for the Modernization department at Washington State University (WSU), with more than17 years of experience and currently driving operational excellence and process improvements. He can be reached at gerik_kimble@wsu.edu.

Ryan Loftus is a Manager in Deloitte’s Higher Education Workday Adaptive Planning practice and has 11 years of experience in professional services supporting clients in higher education, federal, and commercial sectors. He can be reached at rloftus@deloitte.com.

• Forming internal partnerships between sponsored programs and governmental relations to help shape policy and ensure alignment between institutional research priorities and evolving legislation.

• Cultivating external partnerships between research offices and colleagues to share concerns, best practices, advocate, and problem-solve.

“Supporting Research…Together” is all about partnerships. It means our collective strength remains stronger than ever, especially during times of challenge. Stay connected, stick together, maintain current partnerships, and create new ones. Our strength lies in our partnerships.

Whether you work at a research institution or a predominantly undergraduate institution, the importance of providing quality services to your faculty in support of their research and scholarship is undeniable. NCURA offers a number of programs to assist your research administration operations and to ensure a high-quality infrastructure that supports your faculty and protects the institution.

Please contact NCURA Peer Programs: NCURA Peer Advisory Services and NCURA Peer Review Program at peerreview@ncura.edu

BUILDING BRIDGES

The Importance of Internal Partnerships

By Jacqueline “Cierra” Hall and Elliani Decker

In today’s rapidly evolving academic and scientific landscape, the complexities of research administration demand more than just expertise in grants and compliance. They require collaboration, innovation, and partnership. Whether it’s securing funding, navigating regulations, or scaling research projects, internal partnerships are at the heart of groundbreaking research. But how exactly do these partnerships work, and why are they so critical to the success of modern research? In this article, we explore how internal partnerships not only enhance efficiency but also drive meaningful progress in the scientific community. We will also investigate the similarities and differences in internal partnership processes, using our own institutions as frames of reference.

What are internal partnerships at an institution?

“Partner” can mean many things across the board. Outside of research administration, here are some common words associated with “partner”:

• Business partner, which infers specific, agreed-upon responsibilities one promises to uphold and includes an item such as a contract, policy, procedure, or expectation

• Dance partner, which is someone who helps control spins, holds their partner through the dips, and works in conjunction with the other

• Life partner; infers a lifelong commitment through everything

• Partner in crime, which is a phrase best avoided in our field.

At an institution, several offices and departments are always partnering together, working towards a common goal with each side providing their expertise to accomplish said goal. In a perfect world, these partnerships work like the ones mentioned above (except, perhaps, for that last example). Some common internal partnerships could include central and departmental offices; Information Technology offices and an Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP); Principle Investigator (PI) and post-award research administrator; Export Control office and pre-award research administrator; or a Vice President of Research Office and an Office of the Provost.

Let’s say you are in a departmental office within a humanities college. If you are supporting a PI in the negotiation stage, you should keep in mind the factors mentioned above: following expectations, guiding the PI through the spins and dips of Just-in-Time procedures, staying with them throughout the whole process, and not becoming their partner in crime by helping them avoid future legal or institutional problems. In return, the PI should do the same.

This is not a perfect world, so partnerships can be messy. However, this is an ideal that departments can both strive for and help create. Perhaps most important to remember in these types of partnerships is that everyone is an individual partnering together in the profession of research administration. Keeping these partnerships strong benefits all.

What are the pros and cons of internal partnerships?

A key advantage of strong internal partnerships is the ability to streamline processes and reduce administrative burden. For example, take the relationship between a sponsored programs office and a department’s grant managers. By working closely together in the pre-award process, they can ensure the timely and accurate submission of grant proposals. In the same way, the collaboration between compliance officers and researchers helps ensure that all projects adhere to ethical standards and regulatory guidelines while still allowing for scientific creativity.

Additionally, these partnerships can help identify potential challenges before they become obstacles. Ongoing communication between faculty and research administrators fosters problem-solving and innovation. Research projects supported by multiple internal units are often better equipped to navigate bureaucratic hurdles by pulling from different types of expertise and ultimately allowing researchers to concentrate more on their work.

Although internal partnerships can offer numerous benefits, there are also potential downsides. Often the most common are communication challenges. With the involvement of multiple units, communication challenges can occur due to misinterpretation, delays, or a lack of communication altogether. The involvement of multiple units may also add layers of bureaucracy, slowing down the decision-making process and complicating workflows. Additionally, excessive reliance on partnerships can create bottlenecks: if one unit misses deadlines or fails to fulfill its responsibilities, that can ultimately affect the overall research timeline.

Overcoming these conflicts requires clear communication, role definition, and collaboration. Creating open communication channels through regular meetings, updates, and group chats can help reduce misunderstandings, delays, and the lack of communication altogether. Establishing clearly defined roles and responsibilities provides accountability and prevents overlooking tasks. Promoting flexibility, cultivating trust, and creating a culture of transparency can help strengthen partnerships between units. Lastly, utilizing shared tools and workflows can streamline coordination and decrease confusion.

What are some real-world examples of internal partnerships?

At The Ohio State University, we utilize internal partnerships between sponsored program officers and department grants managers. Throughout the proposal submission process, those two areas work together to divide and conquer. The grants manager may handle the budget preparation and compliance aspects, while the sponsored program officer works to ensure the project meets all regulatory and institutional requirements. Together, they would review the proposal package, identify any issues or discrepancies, and resolve them before submission, ultimately streamlining the process and reducing delays. This partnership helps avoid errors, speeds up approval timelines, and ensures compliance with funding agency regulations. In post award, the two parties work together on reporting requirements and award management. While partnerships within OSP can be seen between fiscal, contract, and compliance officials, the partnership between sponsored program officers and grants managers are the most prevalent. At a primarily undergraduate institution, such as Southern Utah University, there likely is one office that functions as a central, departmental, export control, and subaward office, and there is a good chance the OSP is comprised of one or two people. The OSP may need to juggle partnerships from every corner on campus and even teach new PIs how to prepare and manage a grant proposal, as well as how to be a good partner. For example, a pre-award research administrator worked with a PI and an administrative assistant who had never worked on any sponsored project before. Before they met, the pre-award administrator sent an introductory email, explained what the OSP office would do on their side of the partnership, and assured them the OSP office would be available to interpret the language surrounding

“Promoting flexibility, cultivating trust, and creating a culture of transparency can help strengthen partnerships between units.”

the proposal. In the first meeting, the group spent a good chunk of time talking about the project, how exciting it was, and what benefit it could bring to our institution. That helped create shared goals and a sense of camaraderie that continued throughout the rest of the proposal development.

Call to Action

In order to help maintain or create effective, internal partnerships, here are three things to try during your next meeting or email with another department:

1. Begin by reminding everyone of the exciting, common goal that your departments want to accomplish together.

2. Reiterate the expertise the other department has in their field and remind them of your role, how you can support them, and the next steps.

3. Put in place or check in on your established communication channel, whether that be a regularly scheduled meeting, group chat, or phone call.

Partners should work together, bringing in expertise from their respective fields and supporting each other where able. Having these strong partnerships streamlines processes, mitigates administrative burdens, and can prevent or prepare for challenges. Still, lack of communication, muddled responsibilities, and overreliance on one partner or another can affect the timeliness of a project. But collaborating around defined responsibilities and clear communication can create a good, healthy partnership.

This profession is called “Research Administration,” but we think it’s missing the word “people.” A focus on partnerships is really a focus on people, seeing how individuals can come together to create and manage the best proposals. N

Jacqueline “Cierra” Hall is a Sponsored Program Officer at The Ohio State University with over three years of experience in research administration. She is skilled in all aspects of the pre-award submission and post-award management processes and has experience with government and non-profit organization sponsors. She can be reached at hall.3242@osu.edu.

Elliani Decker is a research administrator focused primarily on pre-award at Southern Utah University. She has three years of experience in grant proposals and one year of experience in research administration. She has a background in grant writing and submission for nonprofit organizations and has a strong understanding of the whole grant lifecycle process. She can be reached at ellianidecker@suu.edu.

Research Administration in Asia Pacific

BUILDING

By Kevin Jack and Lisa Kennedy

Research infrastructure is a collective term for the equipment (instruments, tools, facilities, collections; both physical and digital), people (expertise), and processes (e.g., sample preparation, data analysis and curation, and efficient workflows) that facilitate research and translational outcomes.

At its core, however, research infrastructure is more about the people and the partnerships than the physical or digital assets they are custodians of. The successful delivery of university-led research infrastructure depends on genuine partnerships at varying levels, including:

• Financial and collaborative partnerships between organizations: Cost sharing to distribute the burden, mitigate financial risks, and maximize economies of scale. These partnerships with scientific organizations, governments, and private industry contribute to innovation through diversification of expertise, enhanced R&D accelerating the innovation cycle, and cross-pollination of ideas.

• Intra-organizational partnerships supported by alignment of strategic vision: Focused efforts bringing research administrators together to support agile delivery models and leverage funding opportunities. Partnerships

supported by transparent governance and administration of research infrastructure are vital to the sustainability of these investments.

• Research partnerships: Interdisciplinary teams bring together researchers from different fields, fostering an exchange of ideas where complex problems can be tackled using integrated approaches to support complex delivery models. These research partnerships continually drive the cycle of innovation in research infrastructure.

Investment by governments in research infrastructure in Australian universities has been significant. Currently, funding from the Commonwealth (Federal) Government is predominantly via the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS). NCRIS supports research and innovation by providing funding for state-of-the-art research infrastructure to a wide range of end users based at universities, small businesses, and industry partners. One of the important goals of NCRIS is “Encouraging Collaboration: Facilitating partnerships between universities, research agencies, and industry” (NCRIS Fact Sheet).

The financial incentives created through the allocation models are designed

to encourage and support inter-organizational partnerships, foster research collaborations between researchers and facilities, and drive investment from private companies—all in the pursuit of delivering innovation. Approximately $AUD4 billion has been committed by the Australian Government to the NCRIS scheme (from 2018-2029) with the expectation that this will be matched by commitments from state governments, universities, and/or the private sector.

This type of investment by governments and the benefit to universities, researchers, and industry is common across the world. In the UK, the government invests via the Research Partnership Investment Fund (UKRPIF) programme. Horizon Europe is the EU’s premier funding program for research and innovation and includes funding for research infrastructure, including large-scale research facilities, scientific instrumentation, data resources, and computational tools.

In the USA, the National Science Foundation (NSF) provides funding for research infrastructure through multiple programs, including the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Program, Mid-scale Research Infrastructure Programs, Major Multi-user Research Facilities, and Community Infrastructure for Research in Computer and Information Science and Engineering.

At an even larger scale, university and national facilities often work together to form global networks that provide the international research community with even greater access to cutting-edge research infrastructure and share best practices. Examples include GlobalBioImaging, trans-national funding and access programs afforded by many synchrotrons worldwide, and internationally distributed networks of light and radio telescopes.

Shared investments alone, though, will not ensure the maximum realization of benefits or return on investment if there is not a shared ownership of the strategic planning, including the ongoing investments in resourcing of operations. Such operational resourcing will again involve the continued partnership between the various stakeholders, including the end users (e.g., academic researchers or industry) and is at the core of a sustainable cost-recovery model.

In the UK context, UKRPIF has commissioned RAND Europe to evaluate their investments to date with a focus on providing tangible evidence for the creation of strategic partnerships between higher education providers and other organizations active in research and quantifying how this has stimulated additional investment in higher education research and contributed to economic growth (RAND Europe, 2024). The evaluation will examine how effectively these capital investments are supported by a broader strategy that strengthens collaboration, ensuring planned operational resourcing.

Robust governance and management structures that allow for genuine engagement between the partners at various levels is a key determinant of success. Such structures are essential to guide the strategic oversight (including resource planning) and efficient operation of the facilities to ensure the promotion of scientific and economic innovation and advancements. Creating environments under which these partnerships and structures can both form and flourish is at the heart of university research administration.

At an organizational level, the details of how these are achieved will vary depending on the scale and local environment of the organization. At The University of Queensland (UQ), research infrastructure that supports the university has been organized in units called Collaborative Research Platforms (CRPs), which operate under a common governance and reporting framework. Indeed, the name is indicative of the role that collaboration and partnership play in their success.

CRPs enhance and enable research excellence and impact through the provision of state-of-the-art research infrastructure, which includes specialized research infrastructure professionals (expertise), equipment (capital), workflows, and/or methods. They are underpinned by specialist professionals who work in partnership with academic researchers and other research administration support services and provide expert advice and comprehensive

Creating environments under which these partnerships and structures can both form and flourish is at the heart of university research administration.

training to ensure that the delivery of capabilities (including data generated) is safe, compliant, and of high integrity. They are a key pillar in the continual innovation cycle that delivers research and translational impact and are a key point of partnership with government and industry. That is, they not only support the research strategy of the university but are, by design, themselves strategic in nature.

CRPs work in partnership with a central team who provide support across the research infrastructure portfolio. The central research infrastructure team, which includes both authors of this paper, work closely with the researchers and the leadership and professional teams in the CRPs. They also work in collaboration with other key research administrative functions at UQ that are specialists in, for example, the research funding landscape, government relations, industry partnerships, contracting, business intelligence and finance, and regulatory compliance and ethics.

This approach has ensured that the CRPs have and maintain well-established partnerships with government, researchers, and industry partners, including both technology providers and end users of the technology. These partnerships have not only leveraged access for the researchers to cuttingedge infrastructure but have also seen CRPs at the center of the development of new technologies and/or the methodologies to deploy new technologies at scale.

The true strength of research infrastructure lies not just in the physical and digital assets, but in the collaborative spirit and strategic partnerships that drive its success. By fostering genuine partnerships at all levels— inter-organizational, intra-organizational, and interdisciplinary research partnerships—universities can create a dynamic ecosystem that supports continuous innovation and excellence. These partnerships, underpinned by robust governance and shared strategic vision, ensure that investments in research infrastructure yield maximum benefits, driving scientific and economic advancements. Partnerships underpin a future where research infrastructure not only supports but also propels the frontiers of knowledge and innovation. N

References

Australian Government. (n.d.). NCRIS fact sheet. Retrieved from www.education.gov.au/ncris/resources/ncris-fact-sheet

Bryan, B., Strabel, T., Hutton, E., O’Brien, K., Guthrie, S., Guijon, M., & Popov, D. (2024). Evaluation of the UK Research Partnership Investment Fund (RR-A2796-1). RAND Europe and Frontier Economics. Prepared for Research England.

RAND Corporation. (2023, October). Isn't it obvious? Why making the case for big research infrastructure is important. Retrieved from www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/10/isnt-itobvious-why-making-the-case-for-big-research.html?form=MG0AV3

Kevin Jack is the Director of Research Infrastructure at The University of Queensland. He is a chemist and material scientist by training and his role focuses on both the strategic planning for and the delivery of Research Infrastructure across the organisation. He can be reached at k.jack@uq.edu.au

Lisa Kennedy is the Director Research Infrastructure (Commercial Management) at The University of Queensland. She works with internal and external stakeholders to build collaborations that support research infrastructure. Lisa is also responsible for contract and risk management for the research infrastructure function at UQ. She can be reached at l.kennedy@uq.edu.au

ResearcherAdministrator Partnerships in Global Health

By Amber Steen, Stellah Mpagama, and Scott Heysell

Despite political trends, health is shared globally. Emerging diseases rarely respect borders. Furthermore, research performed internationally often benefits individuals and communities in other countries. Sub-Saharan Africa is disproportionately affected by infectious diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and HIV co-infections while facing challenges in designing and managing effective research that stems from a mix of historical, socio-economic, infrastructure, and institutional factors. Nevertheless, many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa contribute participants, laboratories, and, ultimately, research discoveries that do not always produce rapid health gains in the communities where the research is performed. To address some of these research inequities, cross-cultural partnerships and academic collaboration are critical to advancing local scientific knowledge with improved capacity to translate findings into better health.

Several sponsors offer grants to pursue this important work, one of which is a G11 grant, a mechanism through the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) designed to build research capacity in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). In our case, the G11 is designed to increase the ability to conduct HIV-related research, and we are doing this by creating a formal research administration office at Kibong’oto Infectious Diseases Hospital (KIDH), a national super-specialized facility in the Kilimanjaro region of Tanzania. KIDH’s research portfolio has steadily increased through sub-awards over the years with several government and international partners in the United States, Europe, and Africa with organizations and sponsors including NIH, Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) and European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials

Partnership (EDCTP) through career development fellowship, e.g., Senior Research Fellowship and Clinical Product Development, SimpliciTB consortium, National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Wellcome Trust, the German Agency for International Cooperation, the African Research Excellence Fund, Medical Research Council (MRC), World Health Organization (WHO) and more. As KIDH expands as the national hub, increased research administrative capacity is required to submit grants as the prime institution, manage the post-award processes, and manage effective research administration’s financial and compliance aspects.

Research administration is the behind-the-scenes work that one rarely considers when picturing a scientist bent over a microscope or a nurse delivering medication to a bedside. Yet partnerships are key to developing

teams of administrators with experience in finance and contracts that can purchase the equipment supplies, pay the salaries to start the science, and then perform the monitoring and reporting to funders to keep the science progressing. The need for strong partnerships is no exception, as these are essential roles. For the G11, KIDH is collaborating with longstanding institutes of 15+ years of collaboration, the University of Virginia (UVA) and Kilimanjaro Clinical Research Institute (KCRI), to achieve the goal of establishing a formal research administration office with standardized tools and policies. Working with partners in the United States and Tanzania provides complimentary expertise from a large R1 public institution (UVA) and a regional institution with a diverse grant portfolio(KCRI).

While faculty researchers and international scientists speak a global language and partake in a global scientific culture, we have found that many administrative offices retain more strict local cultural practices, communication styles, and organizational management structures. To enhance the relatability, provide local answers to common in-country or in-region regulatory questions, and be available by phone call or message within the same time zone, having regional and global partners can more easily facilitate research collaborations. Global partnerships also provide unique opportunities for accessing international networks, which can promote diverse perspectives, resource sharing, and increased visibility.

One of the key challenges in global health research partnerships can be the inequitable distribution of resources. For example, NIH limits indirect F&A costs for foreign grants to 8% of direct costs. 8% is insufficient to cover operating costs, and thus, institutions in LMICs are already at a disadvantage when it comes to maintaining or improving infrastructure, such as reliable internet access. Further, the high financial cost of obtaining visas to disseminate research, paying article processing charges, or accessing research library databases further highlights the inequitable distribution of resources, not to mention the associated time burden.

Research training has often defaulted to historical models of institutions in financially wealthy countries with large donors (e.g., US institutes and NIH funding) training LMIC institutes. An alternative, so-called South-South partnership, has proven successful in other settings of capacity development (Fonseca, 2018; Ivers, 2010). A secondary goal of the G11 aims to develop and implement a sustainable regional grant administration training program and support network. This will allow South-South collaboration, where the research administration trainees at KIDH will provide training, resources, and knowledge sharing with other research administrators in Sub-Saharan Africa to improve sponsor compliance in pre- and post-award and collaboratively support investigators by offering a full-service approach to research administration.

Another example of partnership is through our unique D43 and G11 integration. A D43 is another NIH training grant mechanism aimed at strengthening scientific capacity. Coupled with our G11 focused on research administration capacity, these two grants provide a unique opportunity for bi-directional engagement. Previously, we noticed a disconnect between early-stage investigators and preparing high-quality grant proposals that are compliant with sponsor policies and submitted before deadlines. Through this D43/G11 partnership, we paired D43 and G11 trainees to collaborate on proposal development to ensure high-quality, compliant applications were submitted (Steen, Mpagama et al., 2024). The benefit of this collaboration has led to improved communication between administrators and investigators, an appreciation for each other’s work, a collaborative grant proposal development approach, and increased submission of timely, compliant applications (Steen, Jana, et al. 2024). As we are only in our first of three years for the G11, we anticipate this collaborative approach will result in increased grant awards to KIDH and, ultimately, improvement in the lives of people living with HIV and associated co-infections.

Global health partnerships can take many forms and provide significant

“…developing global scientists and research administrators improves health for a world we all share.”

opportunities to advance health by developing research capacity and scientific advancement, improving resource sharing, and engaging with diverse perspectives on shared health interests. In research administration, this looks like collaborative staff who are proactive leaders in identifying funding opportunities, formulating a plan to lead proposal development, providing comprehensive review to research faculty, and thorough post-award management and compliance. It bears emphasizing in our current climate of increased scrutiny of international collaborations that developing global scientists and research administrators improves health for a world we all share. N

References

Fonseca, B. de, Albuquerque, P. C., Noyons, E., & Zicker, F. (2018). South-South Collaboration on HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Research: When birds of a feather rarely flock together. Globalization and Health, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-018-0341-1

Ivers, L. C., et al. (2010). South-South collaboration in scale-up of HIV care: Building human capacity for care. AIDS, 24 (Suppl 1), S73–S78. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aids.0000393770.21489.a9

Steen, A., Mpagama S.; et al. (2024, October 26-30) A framework for evaluating an established multidivisional research administration office in Tanzania to inform future strategy [poster presentation]. The Society for Research Administrators International (SRAI) Annual Conference. Chicago, IL, USA.

Steen, A., Jana, T., et al. (2024, April 23-25) Effective Researcher-Administrator Partnerships: Integrating culture and Experience [oral presentation]. The European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (EARMA) meeting, Odense, Denmark.

**The grants described are supported by the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers D43TW012247 & G11TW012747. The content is solely the authors' responsibility and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Amber Steen is the Associate Director of Research and Global Programs at the Center for Global Health Equity and Program Director for Compassionate Care Research in the School of Nursing at the University of Virginia. She supports and manages a diverse research portfolio alongside dedicated partners, scientists, and clinicians in Ghana, Nepal, Nicaragua, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda. She is passionate about relational caring, advancing health equity, and health as a human right. Amber co-directs the G11 with Dr. Mpagama and supports the D43. She can be reached at asteen@virginia.edu.

Stellah Mpagama, MD, PhD, is a physician-scientist and the Director of Research and Training at Kibong’oto Infectious Diseases Hospital in Tanzania. She aims to build research capacity through carefully designed clinical and programmatic/health system/implementation studies and to provide mentoring to Tanzanians in infectious diseases research to translate research into best practices. Dr. Mpagama is the 2022 recipient of the Dr. Maria Kamm Best Female Scientist in Tanzania award in 2022. She co-directs the G11 and D43 and can be reached at sempagama@yahoo.com.

Scott Heysell, MD, MPH, is a physician and public health scientist and the Thomas H. Hunter Assoc. Professor of International Medicine and Director of the Center for Global Health Equity at the University of Virginia. He co-directs the D43 with Dr. Mpagama. He can be reached at skh8r@virginia.edu.

SELF CARE FOR THE RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR

DSelf-Care PARTNERSHIP FOSTERS

By Dwayna K. Dawkins

id you know that 77% of professionals encounter burnout in their careers? (Deloitte, 2024) As research administrators, we often prioritize our work over our well-being and self-care –but at what cost? We must take the time to prioritize ourselves because, in our profession of research administration (RA), the demands of our workloads can feel overwhelming, frustrating, daunting, intense, and challenging. We are expected to manage many duties, meet tight deadlines, and manage complicated circumstances while still being high performers. In the face of those great expectations, prioritizing self-care through partnership can reduce our likelihood of burning out.

Partnerships among our fellow research administrators create a support network, relieving the burden of individual self-care. Self-care and partnerships are the foundational pillars of professional success in RA. An effective way to find balance is through partnering with others in our profession. Whether it's a seasoned mentor who offers guidance/a listening ear, a trusted colleague, or an encouraging/supportive supervisor, partnerships are impactful. These connections formed amongst us make self-care attainable and add to its benefits, permitting us to flourish personally and professionally.

Before entering RA, I did not cultivate many professional relationships based on partnerships. I was a one-person band performing solo, and I did it all. As a result, I was often left feeling depleted and drained, a tell-tale indicator of my nonexistent self-care. I didn't realize self-care's importance until I reflected upon my journey. I realized that my lack of self-care marked the lowest points in my career and that the people and relationships around me played a major role in changing that. During the onset of the pandemic, due to burnout and juggling many obligations, I was exhausted and needed a significant change, so I began prioritizing self-care.

Along this self-care discovery journey, I've created partnerships that included my professional association, NCURA, a mentor, supervisors, colleagues, and a group at my current institution. In 2022, I joined NCURA's

EMERGE pilot program, designed to support and mentor new professionals. This program significantly boosted my self-care transformation. Being new in the sector, this program had a tremendous impact and helped to shape my foundation. I learned so many valuable lessons and gained insight that I didn't know mattered or that I needed. Through EMERGE, I met one of the program's most positive and radiant individuals and formed a friendship. Each year, we would reconnect at the annual conference, and whenever I needed professional guidance, she was a great resource.

One of the lessons I learned was that where you work matters. I was at a previous institution for nearly two years and am now on my second work anniversary with my current organization. This institution has allowed me to connect and collaborate with like-minded partners, thus allowing me to authentically show up as who I am. These partnerships include the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) group at my division level, allowing me to join like-minded colleagues to raise awareness within our university community. Being involved with this group brings me a sense of purpose, fulfillment, and joy, and that's what meaningful partnerships can accomplish.

Additionally, having a supervisor who took the time to train me while also reminding me to take time to rest was essential for me prioritizing self-care. That encouragement and support were integral to my growth and success and highlighted the crucial role of leadership in promoting self-care and well-being. Creating a safe space with a few colleagues was essential to building partnerships that allowed us to thrive and grow. We meet in groups of two or three and discuss various personal and professional topics. We are each other's cheerleaders for wins, an objective opinion, a different viewpoint, a fresh perspective, and support in overwhelming times. These instances enhance partnership and assist us in being mindful of each other's well-being. These experiences collectively have reinforced the power of partnerships to guide me through challenges, prevent feelings of isolation, reduce stress, and allow me to take time to recharge.

I'm now in my fourth year as a research administrator; I began in postaward and subsequently moved on to pre-award. No matter what side of the life cycle I have been involved in, it requires mental fortitude, emotional intelligence, resilience, strength, problem-solving, dedication, and, at times, long, arduous hours. The skills required, the daily tasks coupled with nuances, and an ever-changing landscape can lead to exhaustion, stress, and anxiety and eventually take its toll. Self-care is an essential tool and a critical priority when faced with these hurdles, and creating, building, and maintaining partnerships is crucial in attaining balance.

With this current climate, self-care isn't optional; it's essential. And it doesn't need to be a solo effort. Self-care provides support that reminds us to slow down and prioritize ourselves. Whether it's a colleague cheering you on, a supervisor encouraging you to rest, or a mentor stimulating you, partnerships are invaluable to your self-care. By cultivating solid connections, we can build a supportive research administration ecosystem where we can truly flourish.

It's also important to surround yourself with others who will hold you accountable for your self-care. Let's prioritize partnerships as part of our self-care journey and encourage others to do the same. How are you prioritizing your well-being? When was the last time you took a break that wasn't just to answer a work-related phone call or take a moment to step away from your desk to eat lunch? As research administrators, we regularly put work first – but what if we began to consider ourselves and our well-being

as a priority? Implementing small changes, like setting boundaries, time management, building partnerships, and taking breaks can make that a reality, allowing you to feel more relaxed and less stressed. My advice is to build those partnerships, build those bridges, and embrace the formation of solid connections in this industry. If you are unsure where to start, consider joining a smaller group or committee through your professional associations or institution that will offer a more personal and relaxed environment, and if the first group doesn't work out, try another one. Another alternative is to travel to conferences and workshops. It is a great way to meet new and seasoned research administrators who you can lean on to help you build a thriving RA community tailored to you. N

Reference Deloitte. (2024). Workplace burnout survey. Deloitte. www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/burnout-survey.html

Dwayna K. Dawkins is a Contract Administrator at the University of Maryland, College Park. She holds a master’s degree in Research Administration and Compliance from the City University School of Professional Studies, and a master’s degree in Urban Policy and Administration from Brooklyn College. From a public administration background, Dwayna has been with UMD since March 2023 and works in pre-award, specializing in proposal submission, awards, and contract negotiation. She can be reached at dawkins2@umd.edu.

TRAINING TIPS

EHow Fostering Partnerships Can Elevate Research Administration

Training and Enrich Workplace Culture

By Helene Brazier-Mitouart and Jennifer Neira

ducators and trainers in research institutions are always looking for strategies that can improve the relevance of their training material and the engagement of their participants. We can all benefit from initiating more partnerships as we prepare and deliver training and educational presentations. Cooperation and collaboration will lead to more relevant learning material and employee connections. Greater collaboration in organizing, providing, or participating in educational sessions will make colleagues feel energized, connected, and more dedicated to learning. The workplace culture will also benefit from this.

We want to share with our community of fellow educators and trainers a few avenues to actively foster more partnerships in our institutions and tap into a great source of connection. Here are four selected ideas to get started:

I. Bridge Gaps by Enhancing Training Material with Cross-Department Collaboration

We can improve training material relevance and completeness by fostering partnerships between departments and central offices while preparing the educational material. Who has ever taken a training session and wondered: "Don't they know that the other office asks for more than this, or does not understand this information?" or "Aren't they aware that this information is not accessible to departmental users who have different visibility privileges?" Unfortunately, disconnected and incomplete training materials and information are always distributed to employees. As educators, we can try our best to remedy this issue by ensuring the information we share during our training is prepared and periodically reviewed by various stakeholders from different roles and offices. Seeking their input on what should be included in the training material or removed if it is no longer relevant makes a big difference.

Tips on where you can start:

1. Meet with subject matter experts(SMEs) from the relevant offices involved or impacted by the process.

2. Identify their challenges and recommendations before proposing changes incorporating feedback.

3. Ensure all stakeholders from various offices agree on the process and the details of each step.

4. Review the learning material employees can access, whether it's a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), a “how-to” video, or a checklist.

5. Remove any discrepancies and add necessary detail to ensure users are provided with the correct guidance to ensure compliance.

6. Take the time to share a draft of the updated learning material with collaborators and a few future users for final feedback to ensure the information is clear and comprehensible.

II. Select the Ideal Partners and Lay Down the

Ground Rules

Picking colleagues with the expertise and the enthusiasm to work together is the right place to start. Being transparent and upfront about the time commitment and the amount of work expected to make sure they can handle it ensures expectations are shared. Immediately setting deadlines will avoid surprises, especially if the project involves multiple meetings and follow-up tasks. This proactive approach keeps things running smoothly and limits unnecessary delays and frustration. Nobody enjoys collaborating with team members who don't pull their weight or miss deadlines. We do need to keep everyone on track to get the project done.

Tips on where you can start:

1. Seek recommendations from your network to find collaborators with both the skills and the drive for the project.

2. Discuss deadlines and expectations with your potential partners to ensure they can commit.

3. Once your team is in place, outline the tasks they must complete and emphasize the due dates.

4. Don't procrastinate in one-on-one conversations if team members do not meet expectations. Instead, better understand the possible reasons behind the delays and promptly elaborate a revised plan with them to optimize information collection.

III. Diversify Teaching Techniques Through Educator Partnerships

By partnering and brainstorming with other educators, we can all incorporate a greater diversity of teaching methods and techniques. Everyone has different perspectives and favorite techniques for maximizing learners' engagement. By regularly discussing new ideas with other trainers and educators in our institutions, we can find small ways to incorporate them, try them, and see what works for us and our personalities.

Tips on where you can start:

1. Reach out to at least two or three educators within your institutions and evaluate their interest in exchanging experiences, strategies, and challenges.

2. Explore how you can support each other. For example, everyone can recommend helpful training software, resources, or tools that may streamline or enhance training.

3. Evaluate which strategies are worth trying to meet your needs and constraints.

4. Keep the discussion open and meet periodically with your group so that collaboration grows organically.

Side thank you note:

Sometimes we are lucky that folks at our institutions have already established partnership networks. For example, Harvard University provides a network for its learning content creators to exchange ideas, share best practices, innovate in learning design, and connect across campus. Members regularly meet to explore educational technologies, tools, and resources that enhance their training programs. They also have access to resources focused on improving the design and development of the learning experience. Thanks to the educators who initiated this!

IV. Boost Engagement Through Collaborative Learning

We can also cultivate a more engaged learning environment by allowing training participants to partner and collaborate during the training. Collaboration should not end when the training session starts. One creative way to bring the benefits of the partnership to our participants is to have them work together on relevant tasks. It could be a budget for a grant application or a complex case study. That enables them to share insights and questions within their group of assigned participants and enhance their skills and knowledge. This is an opportunity for training participants to unite and strengthen their skills to pursue new initiatives. They should get together to build their capacity to do something new. Their knowledge will stick, and their engagement in the process will result in more satisfaction!

Tips on where you can start:

1. Select a critical skill that participants in one of your trainings need to be able to perform confidently.

2. Provide your participants the tools to complete the task independently and offer support only after reviewing their learning material.

3. Give them the time to brainstorm and find the correct answer independently.

4. If the group cannot determine the correct answer, let them ask questions to guide their thinking process.

There are many valuable ways to incorporate more partnerships into our daily educator practice. Working together and helping each other will tremendously benefit our community of colleagues and participants and foster a culture of collaboration in our institution. Who's ready to develop valuable and appreciated connections through partnership?

If you would like to collaborate with us to discuss partnership strategies that have worked for you, we would love to hear from you. Please email us! N

Helene Brazier-Mitouart, PhD, is the Education Manager from the Department of Research Operations at Weill Cornell Medicine, Cornell University. In her position, she teaches an educational course on research grants administration and coordinates a mentoring program for research administrators. Helene contributes to serving her community’s learning needs so everyone can thrive. She has been an engaged NCURA member since 2020. She can be reached at HEB2020@med.cornell.edu.

Jennifer Neira is the University Sponsored Training Operations Manager in Harvard University's Office for Sponsored Programs. In this position, she supports the strategic planning of Harvard's sponsored research training initiatives, creates university-wide training, and develops internal business processes. Jennifer has over nine years of experience in research administration and training at Harvard University, as well as nine years of grant management and financial accounting experience with smaller non-profit organizations. She can be reached at Jennifer_neira@harvard.edu.

Partnership via the NCURA Region V Mustang Mentoring Program

By Sara Romack and Dawn Underwood

The mentee’s perspective provided in this article is by Sarah Romack, Director, Ethics and International Research Compliance, at the University of North Texas. In an increasingly virtual and globalized world, the need for authentic community is as critical as ever. This certainly is true in the profession of research administration since our work involves partnerships across individual campuses and between institutions. The0 NCURA Region V Mustang Mentoring Program (MPP) is an effective route to establish community through the partnership of mentors and mentees. While I had been working in higher education for over a decade, I was still in my first year of working in research administration when I applied to the MMP. As many others have experienced, my office was impacted by staffing and resource issues, so my supervisor was stretched too thin to provide more than the minimum support needed to someone new to the profession. I thought the MMP might be a good way to learn about research administration and grow my professional network. In reality, my experience went far beyond my expectations.

In the initial program orientation, mentees were encouraged to set up regular one-on-one meetings with our mentor in order to get to know one another beyond the monthly large group meetings. These one-on-one meetings allowed me to not only learn about Dr. Underwood’s professional background, but also to gain her insight as I developed my Leadership Project (a mandatory aspect of the program). I initially felt overwhelmed and lost when it came to my project, but she helped me brainstorm and narrow down my ideas. As I finalized my project and created my presentation for the Region V Conference, she asked pointed questions and provided constructive feedback so that my final product would be effective and polished.

Over the summer of my mentee year, Dr. Underwood invited me to shadow her for a day at the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She gave me a tour of the campus, allowed me to sit in on meetings, and set up a time for me to meet with members of her team. My husband and two young sons came with me on the trip to Tulsa, and all five of us went out to dinner together. It was great to not only hear her advice about working in research administration, but to learn about how she (as a mother and grandmother) has navigated each chapter of her career and family life. She also suggested a visit to the Gathering Place, which is the most amazing park that my family has ever visited!

Our partnership not only helped me as I prepared my presentation for the Region V Conference, but it was invaluable while I attended the conference and beyond. I was nervous about attending my first NCURA conference since I was the only person attending from my university, but members of the OSU-CHS staff I met during my visit to Tulsa were also attending, so I felt comfortable reaching out to them and meeting up during the conference. Dr. Underwood and I have kept in touch since the official conclusion of our program year and her advice has been invaluable as I’ve navigated new challenges and opportunities. I’m thankful for this partnership and her support!

“I thought the MMP might be a good way to learn about research administration and grow my professional network. In reality, my experience went far beyond my expectations.”

The mentor’s perspective is provided by Dawn Underwood, Vice President for Research, at the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences in Tulsa, Oklahoma. About 27 years ago, I unknowingly stumbled into the world of sponsored projects administration. I had just completed my MBA and began working for a community college. I sold computer training to companies in an eightcounty area. The budgeting tools, contract negotiations, even the experience of writing a grant proposal to apply for Department of Labor training funds were skills that I never imagined would continue to benefit me nearly three decades later as a university research administrator. NCURA has been part of my career since 2000, when I joined a university research office and attended my first NCURA event, the Fundamentals of Sponsored Research Administration.

“The program was well-designed, and the assignments taught solid leadership principles.”

Fast forward to the post-COVID era. When the opportunity arose for me to serve as a mentor with the MMP, I decided to give it a try. After all, my work in research administration has not only provided a good living, but it has also taken me across the U.S. and allowed me to work with researchers all over the world. As the pandemic ended, I was concerned by potential effects of the health crisis. Social distancing and campus shutdowns were necessary, but for some they were isolating. Virtual environments (Teams, Zoom, etc.) and working remotely became part of the norm, utilized often even by those who returned to the office.

Sarah Romack and I were paired up in the MMP. The program was welldesigned, and the assignments taught solid leadership principles. Still, I wondered if the virtual meetings were enough to encourage each other and build a lasting network. I took a chance and invited Sarah and her family to visit our small health campus in Tulsa. I was excited when she accepted the invitation!

During the visit, we learned about our challenges and rewards, systems and processes, and we shared good food and laughter. Sarah’s boys even enjoyed the musician who played the guitar and sang at the restaurant that evening. Although I was not able to attend the regional NCURA meeting when Sarah presented her project, my coworkers told me she did an amazing job. I was not surprised to hear these accolades; Sarah is an amazing professional. The MMP continues NCURA’s work of bringing research administrators together to lend a hand and encourage each other. I too am thankful for the partnership we have built through NCURA. N

Sarah Romack is the Director of Ethics & International Research Compliance at the University of North Texas. In this role, she oversees conflict of interest, export control, international affiliations, and research security. She is a 2023 graduate of the NCURA Region V Mustang Mentoring Program. Sarah can be reached at Sarah.romack@unt.edu.

Dr. Dawn Underwood is the Vice President for Research at Oklahoma State University, Center for Health Sciences in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Dr. Underwood earned her Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration from Indiana State University and an MBA from Ball State University. Dr. Underwood has been active in NCURA for twenty-five years, and in three different NCURA regions. She can be reached at chs.vpr@okstate.edu.

NCURA Regional Corner

REGION I

www.facebook.com/ncuraregioni

Spring is finally making its way to New England, bringing much-needed sunshine and warmth. It’s a season of renewal, anticipation, and excitement for the adventures ahead!

Speaking of excitement, we are thrilled to announce the NCURA Region I 2025 Spring Meeting in Manchester, NH, from April 28-30. This year’s theme, “The Case of the Changing Landscape: Navigating the Future,” highlights the ever-evolving nature of research administration. The program committee has been hard at work crafting an informative and engaging agenda designed to help attendees adapt to new challenges and opportunities.

The conference will feature a wide range of concurrent sessions and discussion groups, covering essential topics such as strategic planning for research administration and harnessing AI for efficiency. Participants will gain insights from experts and peers, learning best practices to stay ahead in this rapidly shifting landscape. Attendees will also receive a virtual update from COGR on key national developments.

Beyond the valuable learning sessions, the meeting promises plenty of fun and networking opportunities! Enjoy a comedy tarot card show, offering a unique and light-hearted twist to the conference atmosphere. Engage with colleagues, exchange ideas, and collaborate on solutions to shared challenges. A special shoutout to the amazing program committee and to Curtis Van Slyck and Caitlin Crowley, our outstanding Program Co-Chairs, for their dedication in making this event a success!

Regional Updates

In January, the Advisory Committee gathered for an in-depth, in-person meeting to assess Region I committee work and offerings. Some of these updates will be unveiled at the Spring Meeting Business Meeting in New Hampshire.

Meanwhile, the Curriculum Committee is busy developing Wicked Good Chats and revamping Research Administration Discussion Groups. Keep an eye on Region I emails for session details and sign-ups. A big thank you to Saira Valley, Curriculum Chair, and her fantastic team!

Get Involved! We encourage more Region I members to volunteer— whether at the Spring Meeting, the National Meeting in DC, or by joining a committee. If you're interested, reach out to Christopher Medalis, Chair of the Volunteer Committee, at vc@ncuraregioni.org.

We look forward to seeing you in Manchester!

Stacy Riseman, MBA, is the 2025 Region I Chair and serves as Director, Office of Sponsored Research at the College of the Holy Cross. She can be reached at sriseman@holycross.edu.

REGION II

www.facebook.com/groups/ncuraregionii

Regardless of what’s going on in the current political climate, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are values that have always been and will always be incredibly important to us as research administrators and as human beings. Our strength is our people, our connections, and our willingness to come together. Our diverse backgrounds make us more resilient, compassionate, open-minded, and creative (not to mention interesting!). Inclusiveness is one of NCURA’s six values, and that is not changing. At times like these, it’s important for us to lean into our community and look out for each other.

So, I just want to say thank you to those research administrators out there going through it, who show up to offer your best every day, even if you don’t feel your best. We value you immensely.

Speaking of DEI, our Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee is busy planning several opportunities for engagement to maintain our culture of inclusion and belonging. However, they would like your suggestions for learning opportunities, speakers, and/or events. We’re also looking for suggestions for our book club! Contact Margarita Cardona at mcardona@ubalt.edu for more information.

I’d like to correct myself from last month–our new Mentor-Me Chair is Jennifer Harman, University of Rochester. We also have three new At-Large Board members: Charles Bartunek, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia; Anusha Naganathan, University of Rochester; and Becca Steiner, Morgan State University. I’d also like to send a special thank you to our departing At-Large members, Rashonda Harris and Albana Cejne. Thank you for your hard work and service to the region.

Our Volunteer Committee provides member engagement activities throughout the region. If you are looking to get involved, have an idea, or just want to say hello, please reach out to Chair-Elect, Rebecca O’Brien at robrien@towson.edu or myself, and we can work with you to find a volunteer opportunity in our Region that matches your interests, talents and availability!

We’d also love to have new folks join the program committee for the 2025 regional meeting in Saratoga Springs, NY. The program committee is a super fun way to get involved and offers many opportunities to contribute. Please contact Catherine Parker at caparker@umd.edu if you’re interested in helping out.

Please reach out to me if you have any suggestions for programming, networking opportunities or events/activities.

Cassie Moore is the 2025 Region II Chair and serves Assistant Director at the Office of Research Administration at the University of Maryland, College Park. She can be reached at cmoore17@umd.edu.

REGION III

www.facebook.com/ncuraregioniii

Happy Spring, Region III! We are hard at work finalizing preparations for our April 2025 Spring Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky. Our chair-elect, Celeste Rivera-Nunez (University of Central Florida), her co-chair, Jeanne Viviani-Ayers (University of Central Florida), and our Program Committee are working with The Galt House to plan a flamingo-fabulous event that allows us to flock together and plan a fun, informative meeting. This year's theme is “Let’s Go and Grow: Learning and Leadership in Research Administration”! More information about the meeting and related travel is available on the Region III website: 2025 Region III Regional Meeting. Thank you to the Program Committee for their hard work on the 2025 meeting!

Compliance/IRB/IACUC: Scott Niles (Georgia Institute of Technology) and Melanie Clark (Georgia Institute of Technology)

Contracts/Subawards: Tameria Mace (University of Central Florida) and Laura Letbetter (Georgia Institute of Technology)

Departmental: Lorrie Robbins (Duke University)

Federal: Laura Letbetter (Georgia Institute of Technology) and Scott Niles (Georgia Institute of Technology)

Post-Award: Betty Morgan (North Carolina State University) and Carly Pigg (Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans)

Pre-Award: Stephanie Rodriguez-Makhlouf (University of Central Florida)

PUI/ERI: Linnea Minnema (Samford University)

Research Development: Emily Devereux (University of South Carolina) and Erin Butler (Emory University)

Workshops: Danielle McElwain (University of South Carolina) and Melinda Fischer (Clemson University)

We still need volunteers for this year’s meeting as well. Remember, not everything has to be a large time commitment, and we need help with little things, too! If you are interested in volunteering, check out the opportunities on our website or reach out to our new Volunteer Coordinator, Lora Bailey (Virginia State University).

Our keynote speaker this year will be Dr. Katie Nichols. Dr. Nichols became the Director of Mental Performance for Louisville Athletics in the fall of 2022. Dr. Nichols oversees a team of mental performance coaches providing performance enhancement services to athletes, coaches, and support staff in a comprehensive and integrated sport psychology delivery model. We look forward to seeing you all there!

Instead of our meeting hospitality suite, this year we have rebranded to Community Connection led by Stephanie Broxton (Georgia Institute of Technology). It will provide programming throughout the year to personally engage the membership.

Rebecca Wessinger is Region III Secretary and serves as the Director of Research Operations, for the University of South Carolina, Molinaroli College of Engineering and Computing. She can be reached at RRWessinger@sc.edu.

REGION IV Mid-America

www.ncuraregioniv.com

www.facebook.com/pages/Ncura-Region-IV/ 134667746605561

Greetings Colleagues! Hopefully everyone has been surviving whatever weather this winter has thrown their way. In the Midwest we have just been trying to stay warm! Lots has been going on in the region (including elections for new officers) with much of the focus on preparing for our spring meeting in Chicago!

Registration is now open for “The Future’s So Bright” Region IV’s Spring Meeting, May 4-7 at the Swissotel. Conveniently located downtown, the Swissotel boasts beautiful views of Lake Michigan, the Chicago River and the city. We are again hosting a Research Administrators Certification Council Body of Knowledge pre-workshop, Saturday, May 3. We will begin on May 4 with some terrific workshop offerings–both a.m. and p.m. sessions–including Introduction to Research Administration, Pre-award and Post-award Basics, Effective Presentations, Introduction to Industry Contracting, the NIH Grant Cycle and Mastering Large Grant Applications. The meeting will then officially kick off with an opening night reception at the hotel and then time to explore Chicago prior to joining us at the nightly hospitality suite.

The rest of the meeting will be packed with morning wellness opportunities, discussion, concurrent and poster sessions, events, collegiality, and time to confab. More than 80 sessions are scheduled! Our Monday Keynote speaker is Laura Albert, Professor of Industrial & Systems Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Albert’s research focuses on mitigating risks in the public sector through optimization and operations research methodologies, with applications in critical infrastructure protection, public safety, and emergency response. Check out her blog, Punk Rock Operations Research. We’ll again host our Newcomers Reception on Monday evening, just prior to our annual Monday Night Dinner Groups. The reception provides a chance for those new to the spring meeting, the region, or NCURA, to meet each other and the Region IV leadership, and to learn more about the tremendous opportunities available. Tuesday will bring more breakout session, awards presentation, annual poster session (with dessert) and a fun evening event at the Museum of Ice Cream. Explore the museum’s whimsical exhibits, take Instagram-worthy photos, and enjoy a variety of ice cream-inspired treats! Wednesday will provide more breakout sessions as well as our annual business meeting and more time to explore the possibilities of our bright future!

Here’s looking forward to connecting in Chicago!

Roger Wareham is the Region IV Chair and serves as the Director of Grants and Research at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. He can be reached at warehamr@uwgb.edu.

www.facebook.com/ncuraregionv

Howdy Region V! I am thrilled to serve as your 2025 Chair for Region V and look forward to continuing our drive to recognize, represent, and empower ALL of our Region’s members. I know our Region is a place where everyone can feel heard, supported, and uplifted. I look forward to collaborating on our regional mission with y’all throughout the year.

The Region V Program Committee is keeping the momentum going for our regional meeting. We’re currently seeking volunteers for the 2025 Program Committee to assist in planning and organizing the 2025 Region V Fall Meeting at the Embassy Suites by Hilton San Marcos Hotel Conference Center in San Marcos, TX. Additionally, we’ve released the call for presentation proposals for the conference. I would love to personally invite YOU (yes, you!) to submit a presentation for our 2025 meeting. We need everyone's perspective: from those with a year of experience to those with 30 years, from R1 institutions to PUIs, and everyone in between. Don’t hesitate to submit your proposal—your voice is vital to our success. For details on how to volunteer or submit a presentation, please visit our website and keep an eye out for regional emails, social media posts, and other communications!

I look forward to celebrating The Power of Y'all at our 2025 Region V Fall Meeting! We will gather from October 19-22, 2025, in San Marcos, TX. Visit the NCURA Region V Website for details on how to book your hotel, view the schedule-at-a-glance, and other important information throughout the year: www.ncuraregionv.com/fall-2025-meeting.

The Region V Executive Committee is diligently working on our everyday regional business. Our executive committee has been creating standardized policies and procedures, organizational structures, and repositories, and assembling the necessary guidance and support for our regional business to sustainably transfer from year to year. We’re currently seeking volunteers for the Region Standing Committees to help with the day-to-day administration of the Region’s business. For details on how to volunteer, please keep an eye on your inbox.

Don’t forget about our amazing year-round programming, including virtual Lunch and Learns every second Wednesday at noon CT, our Region V business meeting at the NCURA Annual Meeting, and of course, our 2025 Region V Fall Meeting!

Let’s move through this year with renewed energy, drive, and vision, and continue to celebrate The Power of Y’all!

Liz Kogan, CRA, is the 2025 Region V Chair and serves as the Director of Research Administration, College of Education, at the University of Texas at Austin. Liz can be reached at liz.kogan@austin.utexas.edu.

REGION VI

www.facebook.com/groups/729496637179768

It’s hard to believe we’re already a few months into 2025! As we continue navigating the new federal administration’s Executive Orders, it’s truly heartening to see how we’re all coming together to support one another and the profession of research administration.

Region VI kicked off its educational programming with the session “Introduction to Audits” led by Stephanie Gray and Beata Najman on February 13th. This was just the first of several free lunch-and-learn sessions planned for 2025, so stay tuned for more opportunities to engage and grow.

The Region VI and VII Lead Me program has also selected seven exceptional mentees for the 2025 cohort. These individuals will have the chance to connect with a diverse group of mentors and speakers throughout the year, culminating in a final project presentation at the 2025 regional meeting in Costa Mesa, CA, this November.

Speaking of the regional meeting, plans are moving forward smoothly. The program committee is coming together, and final site visits will take place this spring to ensure that everything is set for what promises to be another exciting and successful gathering, in collaboration with our partners from Region VII. We’ll be sharing more updates as we move forward!

Looking even further ahead, we’re already beginning to consider the location for the 2026 meeting. Region VI Vice-Chair Patrick Lennon and I continue to work closely with Region VII leadership to identify a vibrant and welcoming city to host this event.

We’re hopeful that these initiatives and others will continue to support you and the entire NCURA community throughout the year.

Lastly, it is with deep sadness that we share the passing of Theresa Caban. Theresa’s dedication to NCURA and its members was extraordinary. Among her many contributions, she served as the chair of Region VI in 2022. The outpouring of messages and memories from friends and colleagues has been overwhelming. Theresa’s loss will be deeply felt, but we will continue to honor her legacy by striving to embody the same passion, energy, and enthusiasm that she brought to everything she did.

Matt Michener is the Region VI Chair and serves as Associate Director of the Office of Research Support and Operations at Washington State University. He can be reached at jmatthew.michener@wsu.edu.

www.ncuraregionvii.org

www.facebook.com/groups/NCURARegionVII

Howdy Jackalopes! As we head into Spring, we’ve already seen some big changes in our region. Our Chair-Elect, Noelle Strom, and one of our Members-At-Large, Alexus Robertson, have accepted new positions outside our region. Please join me in congratulating them and thanking them for all the work they’ve done in support of Region 7. We will certainly miss them both! Of course, this means we had to have a special election to fill these critical positions.

Please join me in congratulating our new Region 7 Chair-Elect, Garrett Steed. Garrett is the Assistant Director for Pre-Award at the University of Colorado-Denver’s Anschutz Medical Campus, and he has served as the Region 7 Volunteer Coordinator and has been a track lead for regional and national meeting program committees.

We also congratulate our new Member-At-Large, Carrie Childs. Carrie is Assistant Director of Sponsored Programs at Southern Utah University, and you will have seen her co-presenting workshops and sessions at several recent NCURA conferences!

In other news, we are moving forward with planning for RM25 in Costa Mesa, CA in November 2025! The program committee will be convening soon to prepare the call for session proposals. Start pulling together your best workshop and session ideas, because we’re building a great program and would love to include as many of our members as possible!

Our PEDC has been busy planning several upcoming R7 Roundup sessions. A Grow in Your Profession (GRiYP) session is coming up on April 16, 2025 entitled “Essential Strategies for Smooth Project Closeout.” To learn more, please visit www.ncuraregionvii.org/pedc.

I hope your Spring is full of beautiful weather and smooth, stress-free days! There have been many stressful days in our profession of late, I know, but hang in there, Jackalopes. Keep supporting each other and our faculty, so the vital work of research can continue changing the world for the better.

Stay connected to the Region: Join our Facebook page and the Region VII community on NCURA Collaborate or visit our regional website: www.ncuraregionvii.org

Want to volunteer? Contact Volunteer Coordinator Garrett Steed, garrett.steed@cuanschutz.edu. Garrett will be able to advise on the various opportunities available.

Brigette Pﬁster is the 2025 Region VII Chair and currently serves as the Financial Compliance Manager in the Office of Sponsored Programs at Colorado State University. She can be reached at Brigette.Pfister@Colostate.edu.

Standing Together

As the United States enters a new presidency, the international community is keeping a close eye on developments, especially when it comes to research funding and policy shifts. We stand with our American colleagues, knowing that their work and funding could be at risk. The impact of these changes will also be felt globally.

We remain hopeful that research and its support will be safeguarded, and we will continue advocating for strong global partnerships. No matter what comes next, we are in this together!

A Strong Start: SAM.gov Webinars

We began the year with a successful kick-off, hosting our SAM.gov webinars on January 22 and 23. We were honored to welcome Sheleza Mohamed, National Director of Government Grants Administration at the American Heart Association and Past-Chair of Region V, along with Jon Teuber, Consulting Manager for Education and Research Practice at Huron Consulting Group (U.S.A.), as our expert speakers. Their guidance on SAM.gov registration and renewal and government contract reporting provided attendees with valuable insights and practical strategies.

One key takeaway? Organizations participating solely as subawards in US federal funding do not need full SAM.gov registration. Instead, they only require a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), a streamlined process. The UEI has now fully replaced the former DUNS number.

On behalf of Region VIII, we extend a heartfelt thank you to Sheleza and Jon for sharing their knowledge and experience with us. If you missed the webinar, we would be happy to share the recording for a small fee. Just reach out to us for details!

Upcoming Conferences & International Engagement

As we write this article, we’re gearing up for the FRA/PRA Conference in San Diego this March, where we anticipate a strong international presence of around 20 international members at FRA and 25 at PRA. Several of our members will also be speaking at the event, and we look forward to insightful discussions, knowledge-sharing sessions, and meaningful connections with our international colleagues.

We’re also excited about the upcoming INORMS Conference in Madrid this May. As the event approaches, we’ll be reaching out to our members attending to help facilitate networking and collaboration throughout the conference.

Looking Ahead

Beyond these conferences, we are actively planning new online events for the spring and fall, and preparations for our Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. are already underway. Stay tuned for updates as we continue to expand opportunities for engagement and learning.

Tine Heylen is the 2025 Region VIII Chair and serves as Senior Advisor, European and International Projects at KU Leuven. She can be reached at tine.heylen@kuleuven.be.

Vanderbilt, U.S. Army Strengthen Connection with New Education Partnership Agreement

by Herschel Pollard

In an expansion of its research and innovation partnerships in defense, Vanderbilt University signed a new education partnership agreement with the U.S. Army Development Command’s Chemical Biological Center (DEVCOM CBC), whose primary mission is to defend the nation against chemical and biological threats.

The partnership is a strategic initiative intended to leverage Vanderbilt’s academic strengths in biology, chemistry, and many related fields and DEVCOM CBC’s innovative research and development capabilities. This partnership is similar to Vanderbilt’s earlier education partnership agreement with the Army Futures Command, which led to the highly successful Pathfinder program.

“Vanderbilt is proud to be a partner, collaborator and consultant in strengthening our nation’s defenses and security,” Chancellor Daniel Diermeier said. “This important partnership expands our portfolio of engagements in which we’re translating our research and innovation into real-world defense solutions and educating the next generation of scientists and engineers in the process.”

By promoting collaborative research and educational activities, the agreement aims to translate research into practical, real-world solutions that improve national defense capabilities while educating the next generation of scientists and engineers.

In celebration of the new agreement, the Office of the Vice Provost for Research and Innovation hosted Michael Bailey, DEVCOM CBC’s director, and Eric Moore, deputy to the commanding general at DEVCOM, along with some of their staff on campus for a series of faculty engagements to explore collaborative projects that could be advanced under the new agreement. Similar to the Pathfinder program, the new agreement with DEVCOM CBC aims to foster work that will have a rapid, positive impact on national defense.

“We will try to transform the way the Army protects its soldiers and mitigate chemical and biological threats,” Bailey said. “This involves exploring new technologies and integrating them into the Army’s platforms and networks. Our aim is to enhance soldier safety by making our defense mechanisms more efficient and integrated.”

In addition to presentations and conversation with faculty from across campus, the visit also featured tours through several of Vanderbilt’s unique and noteworthy research spaces, including the Crowe Laboratory, Center for Integrative Technology, and Vanderbilt Institute for Chemical Biology among others. Each tour highlighted Vanderbilt’s advanced facilities and commitment to practical, transformative solutions to pressing challenges and exciting opportunities in defense and protection of soldiers and gave DEVCOM CBC leaders the opportunity to discuss key priorities with Vanderbilt faculty experts.

For example, during his tour of the Vanderbilt Institute of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (VINSE), Bailey mentioned deep interest in collaborating on materials that can automatically neutralize chemical agents so soldiers don’t have to go through laborious decontamination processes before they can remove affected clothing, while host Sharon Weiss described the institute’s cutting-edge facilities and path-breaking research including nanomaterials that can rapidly detect chemical or biological threats to protect soldiers.

“Vanderbilt leads in chemical biology by bringing science, engineering and computing together to enhance our understanding of everything from cells to complex systems,” said Vice Provost for Research and Innovation Padma Raghavan. “This new partnership with DEVCOM CBC is an ideal opportunity for our teams to collaborate around DEVCOM CBC’s need to protect against chemical and biological threats and Vanderbilt’s strengths at the bio-nano interface.” N

For the complete article visit https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2024/04/18/vanderbilt-u-sarmy-strengthen-connection-with-new-education-partnership-agreement

NCURA Calendar of Events

REGIONAL MEETINGS

• Region I (New England) April 28-30, 2025 Manchester, NH

• Region II (Mid-Atlantic) October 19–22, 2025 Saratoga Springs, NY

• Region III (Southeastern) April 26-30, 2025 Louisville, KY

• Region IV (Mid-America) May 4-7, 2025 Chicago, IL

• Region V (Southwestern) October 19-22, 2025 San Marcos, TX

• Region VI (Western)/Region VII (Rocky Mountain) November 2-5, 2025 Costa Mesa, CA

TRAVELING WORKSHOPS

• Departmental Research Administration Workshop May 19-21, 2025 Salt Lake City, UT

• Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects Administration Workshop May 19-21, 2025 Salt Lake City, UT

• Level II: Sponsored Projects Administration (SPAII) Workshop May 19-21, 2025 Salt Lake City, UT

VIRTUAL WORKSHOPSS

• Level II: Sponsored Projects Administration (SPAII) Workshopp April 7-10, 2025 1:00-5:00 pm ET

NATIONAL CONFERENCES

• 3rd Annual AI Symposium August 9, 2025 Washington, DC

• Annual Meeting August 10-13, 2025 Washington, DC

ONLINE TUTORIALS—10 week programs

• A Primer on Clinical Trials

• A Primer on Federal Contracting

• A Primer on Intellectual Property in Research Agreements

• A Primer on Subawards