May/June 2025 NCURA Magazine by National Council of University Research Administrators

to the Realities of Remote Work at a Predominantly Undergraduate Institution and Thriving

Enhancing Data Collection and Utilization of HERD: Survey Results

Baron G. Wolf, Erin Wallett, and Min Xiao

Understanding the 2022 Changes to SBIR/STTR Vetting Requirements

Research Administration in Europe: How King’s College London has Adapted to Shifting Research Funding Landscapes and Remains Ready for Future Change

Alex Kirk and Caroline Barbour

Nailing the Budget: Why Getting Initial Costing Right Matters for Research Sustainability

Initiatives: (Mis)-Understanding DEI—A

FORWARD FOCUSEDPRIMING FOR CHANGE

IN THIS ISSUE: Forward Focused: Priming for Change is crucial in research administration, where adaptability, innovation, and strategic thinking are essential for success. As funding landscapes shift and policies evolve, research entities, researchers, and research administrators must adopt a global outlook, recognizing the interconnected nature of financial structures across institutions. “The real question isn’t whether change is possible but whether institutions are willing to change,” Minessa Konecky questioned in her article Rethinking Research Administration Through a Global Lens. A global mindset enables the research community to enhance collaboration and foster sustainable opportunities.

NCURA MAGAZINE

SENIOR EDITOR

Tanta Myles

EXECUTIVE EDITOR

Marc Schiffman

ForwardFocused

Managing international collaborations and diverse funding sources requires flexibility and a willingness to adopt new approaches. When discussions hit a roadblock, finding common ground is key. However, as Lisa Zeytoonian’s article states in her article From Stalemate to Agreement: The Finer Art of Negotiations, “Artificial intelligence (AI) may put us at risk of losing that human element… But at what cost?” Mary Louise Healy’s article What Happened? What No Longer Makes Sense? What Next? highlights that policies, procedures, and workflows can be made flexible to allow for easy adaptation to changes. Future researcher administrators must be prepared to handle change.

Tricia Callahan, Luke Lynch, and Kathryn O’Hayre, for their Training Tips article, Forward-Focused Training: Priming Research Administrators for Change, provide information on how to embrace emerging technologies and trends, cultivate change management skills, and focus on the why and how.

CliftonStrengths highlights natural abilities, allowing professionals to focus on what they do best. Using strengths effectively increases confidence, enhances efficiency, and improves leadership growth. Finding joy in work is not about chasing an external idea of passion but understanding and leveraging our strengths. Thank you to Carolyn Mazzella for sharing your article and perspective with us.

A forward-focused mindset is essential for shaping the future of research administration, fostering progress, and ensuring financial sustainability. Those who embrace change and commit to continuous learning will lead in an evolving, dynamic research environment driven by change. N

Tolise Dailey, CRA, is a Co-Editor for NCURA Magazine and serves as Training and Education Development, Georgetown University School of Medicine. She has 30 years of research administration experience. Tolise also currently serves as a Traveling Workshop Faculty for Level II: Sponsored Projects Administration. She has been recognized as an NCURA Distinguished Educator for her outstanding contributions. Tolise can be reached at tcm9@georgetown.edu.

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

Beth Kingsley

Yale University

Laura Letbetter

Georgia Tech

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

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

Frederick Community College

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

MESSAGE FROM YOUR PRESIDENT

By Denise Moody, NCURA President

Welcome to our May/June issue which highlights NCURA’s 67th Annual Meeting of the membership each year, aptly themed Forward Focused: Priming for Change. As research administrators and research managers across the globe, uncertainty and change have always been part of our profession. Often, the only thing that is ever certain is uncertainty. The early months of 2025 have tested our resilience, and NCURA has continued to demonstrate how quickly we can pivot and pool our knowledge and resources to support our membership and the research administration profession as a whole. I encourage everyone to review the Magazine and our website (www.ncura.edu) for ongoing NCURA initiatives to address the changes in the federal landscape and to provide resources to NCURA members and non-members, such as the Changing Federal Landscape Collaborate Community and Career Center offerings.

NCURA’s Vice President/President-Elect, Shannon Sutton, and her wonderful Co-Chairs, Candice Ferguson and Katherine Durben, have been planning the upcoming annual meeting with the NCURA staff and their program committee for many months. Forward Focused: Priming for Change will be held August 10-13, 2025, in Washington, DC as well as NCURA’s 3rd AI Symposium on August 9th. Registration for both educational and engaging events is now open.

In March, more than 1900 attendees came together at our Financial Research Administration (FRA) and Pre-Award Research Administration (PRA) conferences in San Diego to share knowledge, make connections, and build our community. I am grateful to our FRA Co-Chairs, Anne Albinak and Jessica McDonough, and our PRA Co-Chairs, Jennifer Cory and Darren May, for their willingness to take on these leadership roles along with their program committee members and NCURA staff. You will see from this issue’s highlights and photos that the year-long planning was a success, including group photos taken outdoors on the lawn that emphasized #ResearchImprovesYourLife, which were featured in the March/April NCURA Magazine. Magnetic bumper stickers with this tag line were a hit with attendees!

“…NCURA has continued to demonstrate how quickly we can pivot and pool our knowledge and resources to support our membership…”

Our national and regional leaders will be attending a leadership convention later this year in order to develop a strategic “roadmap” on membership engagement, building on last year’s feedback President Kris Monahan collected from several key stakeholders and focus groups. Since this is about the future of NCURA engagement and sustaining the profession, we will be including NCURA’s Young Professionals, as we have done with several of our strategic initiatives for 2025.

I encourage everyone to read the Magazine’s Board Update article from our March Board meeting, where the Board discussed NCURA’s commitment to remain focused on our core mission to advance the research administration profession and support research together and to hold steadfast to our core values of integrity, excellence, service, collegiality, transparency, and inclusiveness. 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.

OResearch Support from Around the World

By Kathleen Larmett, NCURA Executive Director

ver 2,200 research managers and administrators from sixty-seven countries gathered in Madrid, Spain for the 2025 International Network of Research Management Societies Congress (INORMS) hosted by the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (EARMA).

The largest Congress to date addressed many of the current issues facing research in today’s world.

Throughout Congress it was clear that our colleagues from around the world are supportive and empathic to what those of us in the US are currently facing.

When I asked how current US federal agency research funding cuts are impacting her institution, Dipti Pandya, EARMA President stated, “We are in uncharted territory. As EARMA President I have had the privilege of collaborating closely with my counterparts in the US. They are our friends; we have much to share. The impacts, particularly cuts and the reduction in international collaboration are wide reaching on our global research community.”

Lorna Wilson, President of ARMA added, “We are deeply concerned by the current issues being experienced by colleagues in the US, and around the world, with the changes being introduced to US federal agency research funding. The cuts will negatively impact our global R&D system, including preventing world-changing impact on key topics that affect our everyday lives.”

Dominique Michaud, President of the Canadian Association of Research Administrators (CARA), noted, “Science is the bedrock of our progress as a society. It is therefore paramount that we ensure open pathways of scientific cooperation among nations and ensure that no roadblocks are set up to hinder this progress. This is true for the Unites States as for the rest of the world. Recent cuts announced by the US administration will have a severe and profound impact on the progress of science, likely for decades to come.”

NCURA President, Denise Moody, found that our global partnerships are more united and resilient as we go through these challenging times. Everyone agreed that the value of our partnerships will be invaluable as we navigate this together.

The Congress afforded many opportunities to network, learn, and hear various viewpoints from around the globe. AI was of particular interest with a number of sessions offering information on various ways to harness it for improved research and research management. The soft skills sessions were popular, as were sessions on security, audits, and US federal compliance, where the audience learned that things change on a daily basis, and frequently on Friday night.

One of the highlights for those of us attending from NCURA was to see our colleague, Eva Björndal, receive an Award for Excellence in Research Management Leadership. The award is given every two years to individuals nominated by their professional society.

NCURA Region VIII was another highlight that allowed time for our members to gather and make plans for NCURA’s 67th Annual Meeting. Overall, INORMS 2025 was a resounding success, and we look forward to the 2027 INORMS Congress which will take place in April 2027 in Montreal. INORMS 2027 will be hosted by CARA with assistance from NCURA and NORDP. Stay tuned for more information!

Eva Björndal received an INORMS Award for Excellence in Research Management Leadership.

Rethinking Research Administration Through a Global Lens

By Minessa Konecky

Over the last several years, one of the most common topics of conversation at every level and across all institutions in research administration has been the reality of overwork and burnout combined with the constant chase to find more funding from federal agencies. Though they seem disparate, these issues have their roots in the same place, and interestingly, they will also see their solutions through similar means.

Ours is a profession built on the edge of urgency and compliance. When faced with uncertainty like policy changes or funding issues, we often respond by working harder and longer, promising to rest once the grants are submitted. With so many investigators’ funding balanced on the edge of a knife, it seems impossible to shut off, clock out, and set boundaries in the face of losing millions of dollars, our livelihoods, and jobs in a field we love.

The administrative burden of keeping the ship afloat while constantly chasing new funding has only worsened over the years. And we’ve come to

accept this as just the way things are and keep pushing forward. But what if it didn’t have to be this way? What if this cycle of urgency and overwork isn’t inevitable but a response to years of capitalist and colonial systems that can be mitigated to create a more joyful and sustainable research administration experience? One that isn’t driven by the relentless need to check one more task off a list, submit one more grant, or reconcile one more spreadsheet?

What if we approached our work in a way that wasn’t centered on sacrificing time, sleep, health, or relationships but instead on sustainability, adaptability, and a more holistic way of obtaining and supporting funding?

The Power of Diversity of Thought in Research Administration

Typically, our approach to research administration is shaped by a particular set of assumptions: that working longer hours proves dedication to the work and the team; that the path to impact is measured by federal dollars, publication counts, and institutional rankings; and finally, that

more funding equals more success. These ideas layer on top of each other to create a constant feeling of never having enough time and never submitting enough grants because you never have enough money. These ideas don’t emerge in a vacuum. They stem from the historical structures of capitalism, competition, and colonial legacies that have shaped academia for generations. While these forces exist globally, institutions in different countries respond to them in vastly different ways—and that’s where our opportunity for change lies. We have countless spaces to share ideas among institutions in the United States. Still, there are only a handful of opportunities for our global cousins to show us how they’ve structured their systems to tackle the same challenges we’re facing or, in some cases, sidestep them entirely.

Beyond Federal Funding: Global Approaches to Sponsored Research

Funding uncertainty is one of the biggest challenges research administrators face. It is exacerbated by shifting policies, budget cuts, and political attacks on science, making it clear that relying heavily on federal grants may not be sustainable for much longer. That uncertainty can send even the most levelheaded investigators and research teams into panic mode as they scramble to assess losses, mitigate impact, and pick up the pieces.

diverse, community-driven, and sustainable funding structures. Each model demonstrates the research administration’s power beyond traditional grant cycles. As U.S.-based research administrators, this raises important questions:

• How can we move beyond the grant-or-bust mindset and help researchers explore diverse funding opportunities?

• What role can research administrators play in bridging academia, industry, and community organizations to foster more inclusive and impactful research?

• How do we balance financial sustainability with ethical considerations, ensuring that research serves communities rather than corporate interests?

By embracing a broader, more diverse approach to funding and research administration, we can create a more sustainable, equitable, and responsive system to the needs of the communities we serve.

Rather than viewing funding shifts as a crisis, we can see them as an opportunity to reimagine the future of research administration, not just in the context of where we get our funding from, but also by reframing how we approach the work on a day-to-day basis.

A Job About People

At its core, research administration is about people—the researchers we support, the communities impacted by research, and the staff who keep the system running. Yet, too often, our structures prioritize grind over well-being, endurance over efficiency, and institutional expectations over human needs.

“Rather than viewing funding shifts as a crisis, we can see them as an opportunity to reimagine the future of research administration.”

But there’s a silver lining: federal funding isn’t the only way to sustain research. Around the world, institutions are diversifying funding sources to avoid government dependency and foster greater community engagement, ethical sustainability, and long-term impact. Organizations like the Wellcome Trust in the United Kingdom fund research with a strong focus on public health, ethics, and community-driven projects, bridging gaps between science and society without relying on government grants. Germany’s Fraunhofer Institutes integrate industry-funded applied research with academic inquiry, maintaining strong funding streams while preserving academic freedom.

This shift is already happening in the United States, too. The Critical Path Institute brings together scientists from pharmaceutical companies, patient advocacy groups, and research institutions to drive innovation through collaboration rather than competition. These models demonstrate that research doesn’t depend on federal dollars—it can be built on

The global research landscape is evolving, proving that supporting people first doesn’t have to come at the expense of productivity. Many organizations claim to prioritize their workforce, but when it comes to meaningful change, they hesitate—especially when that change challenges deeply ingrained systems.

Take the (theoretical) 40-hour work week, a non-negotiable standard in research administration, despite overwhelming evidence that flexibility increases productivity, satisfaction, and well-being. Japan’s shift to a four-day work week, set to roll out nationwide in 2025, builds on successful trials showing that reducing hours enhances efficiency rather than reducing output—Microsoft Japan, for instance, saw a 40% rise in productivity when employees worked one fewer day per week.

Meanwhile, part-time work is legally protected in the Netherlands, reinforcing that employees shouldn’t have to choose between financial stability and their health, families, or well-being.

The research is clear—flexibility and adaptation work make securing funding easier and managing the workload to get there more sustainable. The fact that these challenges share a solution shows just how much research administration needs a broader, global perspective, one that sometimes requires embracing ideas that feel counterintuitive. The solutions are already out there. The real question isn’t whether change is possible but whether institutions are willing to make it happen. N

Minessa Konecky is a research administration consultant with 25 years of experience specializing in helping departments in crisis stabilize their operations, regain fnancial control, and streamline grants and administrative processes. They have worked across academic institutions, hospital systems, and federal and industryfunded research environments. Minessa also runs Minessa.tv, a YouTube channel dedicated to supporting research administrators. They provide practical advice and real-world strategies to help navigate the complexities of research administration. You can reach them at me@minessa.com.

Focus on what you can control

Despite the uncertain regulatory environment, research institutions can take these four proactive steps to chart a strategic path forward:

1. Model grant and contract ﬁnancial scenarios

Expand estimates and iterate on more detailed, compounded scenarios

2. Identify near-term savings opportunities

Understand where your institution could use internal funds to offset reduced external funding for indirect costs, like shifting approaches to voluntary cost share or core facility subsidies

3. Act to improve long-term efﬁciency

Streamline research administration service delivery and optimize new or existing technology

4. Prepare to pivot

Identify alternative sources of research funding such as gift or restricted funds or new corporate and industry partnerships

The road ahead is complex. Our team of higher education and research experts is here to help. Learn how to better navigate research challenges at go.hcg.com/research-enterprise

Be sure to connect with our team at the NCURA Annual Meeting

Aug. 10-13 Washington, D.C.

ADAPTATION MOTIVATION in Research Administration

By Rashonda Harris

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) has entered the chat, and its presence is reshaping the research administration landscape. AI-driven tools are revolutionizing grant management, compliance monitoring, and data analytics, allowing research administrators to streamline operations and enhance efficiency. At the same time, Generation Z is growing in the workforce, bringing a strong preference for remote work and an innate comfort with technology. According to a 2023 Gallup poll, 54% of Gen Z employees prefer a hybrid work model, and 35% favor fully remote work (Gallup 2023). Their digital fluency and demand for workplace flexibility require institutions to rethink their organizational structures to maintain productivity and engagement.

We, as leaders, must stay agile and adaptive to these shifts. The expectations of employees in selecting their leaders and employers have evolved, with job seekers prioritizing workplace well-being, culture, and flexibility. Studies indicate that 77% of employees consider a company’s culture before applying for a job, and 83% of workers cite workplace well-being as a top priority (Gallup 2023). Many leaders now focus on their greatest resources—their people—by ensuring employees feel supported, valued, and fulfilled in their roles. The hallmarks of a preferred workplace emerge from these efforts, resulting in higher employee satisfaction, retention, and institutional success.

I take the perspective that change should happen with you, not to you. Research administrators have the unique opportunity to shape how institutions adapt to these emerging trends rather than merely reacting to them. This proactive mindset ensures that we remain resilient and prepared for the challenges ahead.

Adaptation Motivation in Research Administration

Adaptability and motivation are essential for navigating these shifts. Research administrators serve as the backbone of institutional research operations, ensuring efficiency, compliance, and innovation. However, without the ability to adapt, professionals risk stagnation in an increasingly dynamic profession.

Drawing on insights from change management principles, this article explores the psychological and organizational factors that drive adaptation motivation, leadership strategies for fostering resilience, and pathways for career development. By embracing adaptability, research administrators can thrive amid uncertainty and lead their institutions forward.

Psychological Drivers of Adaptation

Adaptation motivation refers to the internal and external drivers that inspire professionals to adjust to change. Psychological theories of resilience, innovation, and learning agility illustrate how motivation influences adaptability. Research administrators often experience change-related stress, which can either inhibit or fuel their capacity to adapt.

Key psychological drivers of adaptation include a growth mindset, a balance of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and cognitive flexibility. Those who see change as an opportunity for learning are more likely to adapt successfully. A combination of self-driven passion and institutional incentives strengthens adaptability, while the ability to shift perspectives and embrace new methodologies enhances resilience. Understanding these psychological factors enables institutions to cultivate an environment that encourages change as a pathway to innovation rather than a disruption.

Leadership and Organizational Adaptability

Leaders play a critical role in fostering an adaptable and motivated workforce. Research indicates that visionary leadership, clear communication, and empowerment are essential for driving organizational change. Leaders should articulate the benefits of change and align them with institutional goals; encourage skill development through training opportunities; foster a culture of collaboration to enhance buy-in; and implement proactive education on adaptation frameworks to improve workforce resilience.

Research administrators do not work in isolation; rather, they operate as a community that collaborates, learns from one another, and adjusts collectively. The many leaders in our profession embody what it means to adapt, lead, and inspire, ensuring that institutions remain resilient and forward-thinking.

The Role of Mentorship

Mentorship is a powerful tool in fostering long-term adaptation motivation. Structured mentoring programs provide research administrators

with guidance, support, and career mobility. Mentorship equips professionals with strategies to navigate institutional shifts, boosts morale and engagement, and ensures continuous knowledge transfer and adaptability. Programs such as group mentorship initiatives further enhance professional development by fostering a collaborative learning environment. Institutions should prioritize mentorship to create a workforce that is not only skilled but also adaptable to change.

Emerging Trends in Research Administration

Research administrators must stay ahead of emerging trends to ensure institutional competitiveness. Key areas requiring adaptation include digital transformation, regulatory compliance evolution, and increased transparency expectations. The integration of AI-driven research administration tools is reshaping grant management and compliance monitoring, while new federal and international policies necessitate ongoing policy revisions and training. Open-access initiatives and data-sharing mandates demand administrative agility.

The many changes introduced by the new administration further define us as research administrators. We are agile, we adjust in unison, and we collaborate by observing what others are doing and making necessary modifications. By working as a community, research administrators create a network of shared learning and innovation that enhances institutional resilience and excellence.

Conclusion

Adaptation motivation is the cornerstone of success in research administration. Professionals must view change as an opportunity rather than an obstacle by leveraging mentorship, leadership, and career development to remain resilient. To thrive in an evolving research environment, administrators should engage in continuous learning and professional development, seek mentorship and offer guidance to emerging professionals, and embrace change as a catalyst for innovation.

As research institutions face new challenges, the ability to adapt, lead, and inspire will define the next generation of research administrators. The future belongs to those who approach change with strategic vision, motivation, and adaptability. N

Reference

Gallup. (2023). Data on Gen Z in the Workplace. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/ workplace/404693/generation-disconnected-data-gen-workplace.aspx

Rashonda Harris, MBA, CRA, EdD, is a servant leader. She is the Founder and CEO of Purple Sheep Consulting and a Johns Hopkins Faculty member, teaching in the Masters for Research Administration program. She is a past National Board Member, DRA Traveling workshop faculty, a Region III, and a national recipient of NCURA Distinguished Service Award. She is also a former member of the Presidential Taskforce on Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion and a former Region III DEI committee member. Rashonda can be reached at rharr122@jhu.edu.

WHY YOU SHOULD ATTEND

• Comprehensive Learning: Choose from 11 session tracks as well as pre- and post-conference workshops featuring a wide array of sessions tailored for various experience levels.

• Unmatched Networking: Engage with fellow research administrators through structured discussions, large-group interactions, and one-on-one connections.

• A Perfect Blend of Education & Fun: From hands-on workshops to lively networking to casual social events, there’s something for everyone.

August 10–13, 2025

Washington,

INDIVIDUALS FROM AROUND THE WORLD, HAS BEEN HARD AT WORK CRAFTING AN UNFORGETTABLE EXPERIENCE JUST FOR YOU—OUR VALUED MEMBERS. GET READY FOR A DYNAMIC EVENT FILLED WITH PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, NETWORKING, AND ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES DESIGNED TO INSPIRE AND EMPOWER RESEARCH ADMINISTRATORS AT EVERY LEVEL.

A forward-focused future change is inevitable, and our profession has experienced plenty of it. That’s why AM67’s theme, “Forward Focused: Priming for Change,” is more relevant than ever. It embodies our spirit of adaptability, innovation and readiness –qualities essential for thriving in today’s ever-evolving research environment. Whether it’s navigating shifts in policies, emerging technologies, or funding landscapes, research administrators play a crucial role in shaping the future. This conference is your opportunity to gain the knowledge, skills, and connections needed to lead with confidence and drive meaningful transformation in the field.

EXCITING EVENTS & ACTIVITIES

•Sunday Night Welcome Home Dinner: Join us for a warm and inviting evening in the ballroom, where comfort, connection, and community take center stage. This evening will be a great opportunity to reconnect with colleagues and make new friends in a relaxed and welcoming atmosphere.

•Tuesday’s Family Reunion: Get ready for a fun-filled evening featuring back yard games and regional minute to win it competitions that celebrate the diverse backgrounds and expertise of our community.

•Be True to Your School Wednesday: Show off your school spirit by wearing your institution’s apparel as we wrap up an incredible week together. Wednesday’s presenters are encouraged to participate as well!

Stronger together in times of change, our community becomes more essential than ever. Let’s come together to support research, uplift one another, and embrace the future with optimism and enthusiasm…. Together!

Shannon Katherine Candice

Shannon Sutton

Georgia State University

NCURA Vice President

Katherine Durben

Marquette University

AM67 Co-Chair

Candice Ferguson

Georgia State University

AM67 Co-Chair & AM67 Chair

Transforming University Research Offices: Challenges and Strategies for Success

By Martin Kirk

In the rapidly evolving landscape of higher education, university research offices and Vice President (VP) research portfolios face significant challenges in driving transformation. As institutions strive to enhance their research capabilities, foster innovation, generate impact, and respond to the demands of a competitive funding environment, ever-tightening compliance, understanding these challenges and implementing effective strategies becomes imperative. Dissatisfaction of faculty, lack of compliance with funding agencies, budget cuts, outdated systems, or new VPR leadership often drive the need for transformation. All of these drivers can be deeply unsettling for research office leadership, especially new/young leaders, but should be viewed as an opportunity to improve performance. “Never waste a good crisis!”

Key

Challenges

Cultural Resistance: One of the most significant barriers to transformation is the entrenched culture within academic institutions. Faculty and staff may be resistant to change due to established practices, fear of the unknown, or skepticism about new approaches/initiatives. This resistance can hinder the adoption of innovative practices and technologies.

Resource Constraints: Limited funding and staffing can impede the ability to implement new programs or technologies. Research offices often operate with tight budgets, making it challenging to invest in necessary tools or personnel that can facilitate transformation.

Complex Regulatory Environment: Navigating the intricate web of federal/national, state/provincial, and institutional regulations can be daunting. Evolving compliance requirements can slow down the implementation of new initiatives and create additional layers of complexity.

Keeping Pace with Technology: The rapid advancement of technology presents both opportunities and challenges. Research offices must stay

“Never waste a good crisis!”

abreast of emerging tools and platforms that can enhance research productivity while ensuring that faculty and staff are adequately trained to utilize them. Research administration is a niche business from a global IT system perspective and the options are not optimal. Some of the major providers have created perfectly good finance systems but their integrated research systems are often an afterthought, and not optimal. Deployment of new systems is risky and expensive, and often fails to meet expectations. Systems reach the end of their useful lifetime in as few as 5 years and there is always more resourcing available for replacement of student/HR/ Finance systems!

Strategies for Successful Transformation

Foster a Culture of Innovation: To overcome cultural resistance, it is essential to cultivate an environment that encourages experimentation and embraces change. This can be achieved through workshops, seminars, and open forums where faculty and staff can share ideas and best practices. Most importantly, incentive for impact is needed. If Deans don’t reflect commercialization activity as academic impact as it counts towards promotion and tenure, then they cannot really expect to create the innovation culture.

Define what transformation success looks like: Critically assess what is your “As is” and “to be” operational excellence level. Build a matrix that identifies key attributes of your administrative system and detail where you are, currently, and where you aspire to reach, post transformation. As a wise Stephen Covey expresses in the 7 habits book: “Begin with the end in mind!”

Engage Stakeholders: Involving key stakeholders—faculty, researchers, administrative staff, and external partners—in the transformation process is crucial. By soliciting input and feedback, research offices can ensure that initiatives are relevant and aligned with the needs of the community.

Operational Excellence: Deploy a basic operational excellence system, if it does not yet exist. Make sure each of the operational units have well developed Service Catalogues with sensible Service Lines and Service standards. Make sure that the unit KPIs are feasible (SMART) and regularly reported to VPR/ Deans etc. Ensure there are regular (anonymous) faculty/user surveys to check pulse of the effectiveness of the various research enabling units.

“To overcome cultural resistance, it is essential to cultivate an environment that encourages experimentation and embraces change.”

Map your business processes: Before deploying a new system make sure you have mapped all your critical business processes and that you are not going to embed old processes that will make the new system less than optimal. This is a time-consuming, energy intensive step, but essential. It is the step most often neglected by new administrative leaders and often ensures failure to optimize your overall efficiency.

Communicate Effectively: Clear and transparent communication is essential throughout the transformation process. Regular updates on progress, challenges, and successes can help maintain momentum and build trust among stakeholders.

Strategy: Create a strategic plan that clearly describes the “To be” vision and make sure that all key stakeholders have their fingerprints on it and can see that it is a good plan that they helped create.

Inspire: People need to feel that the destination is a better place than where they all left. However, committing to a transformation takes courage and an inspiring leader can create that vision (and resulting momentum) that goes beyond one that paints staff as mere productivity units. People need to feel inspired and will bring their passion i.e., best game and commitment to work to assure a successful transformation.

Leverage Data-Driven Decision Making: Utilizing data analytics can provide valuable insights into research trends, funding opportunities, and performance metrics. By adopting a data-driven approach, research offices can make informed decisions that enhance their strategic direction and shape an effective transformation.

Invest in Training and Development: Providing ongoing training and professional development opportunities for staff is vital. This investment not only equips personnel with the necessary skills to adapt to new technologies but also fosters a sense of ownership and commitment to the transformation process.

Extra Special Advice:

• Listen directly to faculty when you are assessing their needs and satisfaction with the enabling research administration (staff, systems, policies and processes). Do not use proxies, intermediaries or guesses to understand the needs of faculty.

• Stay close to Deans and listen carefully to what they tell you. However, expect them to speak many languages. They always seem to be saying that: “Central administration costs too much” but at the same time they “Need more of your research development, faster legal review, post award etc.”

• Successful project management of a transformation is crucial, but this cannot happen if there is not an environment of trust.

• Make sure you know what systems the best peer universities are using. The worst mistake is to deploy a “freebie research system” that a finance system vendor gives away, promising instant integration with the new Finance system they are providing.

• Don’t believe everything that system vendors tell you about their systems. Unless you hear good things from professional peers, discount the validity of their marketing.

• Sometimes when unpopular decisions need to be made, it helps to hire an objective, external consultant (peer senior research administrator) to conduct a review that will identify the challenges and opportunities offered by a transformation.

• Often when it is time to deploy a new system, the very people who should be setting you up for success, try hard to value engineer the project into almost certain failure. They will ask if you really need resourcing for:

1.Expert (often external) system deployment expertise

2.Dedicated communications capacity

3.Dedicated training capacity

4. Backfilling positions to replace administrators directly involved in deployment

Everyone wants to save money on systems deployment but as the old and wise saying goes, “You can have a system deployment, cheap, fast or right, pick just one!”

Conclusion

Transforming a university research office or VP research portfolio is a complex endeavour that requires careful planning, strategic thinking, and a commitment to fostering a culture of innovation in an environment of trust. By addressing the challenges head-on and implementing targeted strategies, inspiring staff, institutions can position themselves for success in an increasingly competitive research landscape. Embracing change not only enhances research capabilities but also contributes to the overall mission of advancing knowledge and societal impact. For a new professional, transformation is also a great learning experience and opportunity to understand the business of research administration at their university and shape it for the future. N

Martin Kirk, PhD, is the Associate Vice President for Research at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia. He is an experienced leader in university research management, and has an academic background, holding a PhD in Chemistry. Martin has led the creation and deployment of several research tracking systems. He can be reached at martin.kirk@kaust.edu.sa.

By Amanda Ferguson

Whatever we write here about the current state of federal funding for research will be out of date before this article reaches NCURA readers. Since January, the pace of change has been unprecedented, leading many in our community to spend nights and weekends reading regulations and preparing their institutions for potential impacts.

Rather than review numerous executive orders, policy statements, regulatory changes, and lawsuits, this article offers strategies to anticipate changes, adopt a forward-thinking approach, and position our research administration community for a vibrant future.

Stay Informed

While it may seem like an impossible task, stay abreast of policy changes and updates from federal and state agencies. Regularly monitoring policy changes and updates from federal agencies is crucial for staying informed about the latest developments in grant issuance. Regularly reviewing the White House’s Presidential Actions website or various Executive Order trackers, the Federal Register, and agency-specific news and policy sites will help your institution remain current.

Our research administration community is fortunate to have several professional organizations like NCURA, the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP), and the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) that offer resources like webinars, conferences, and networking opportunities that keep

Hot Topic

members informed about industry trends and best practices. They also provide platforms for discussing challenges and sharing solutions with peers, which can be invaluable in navigating the complexities of grant administration.

Given the volume and frequency of changes and the need to prioritize the day-to-day work of research administration, institutions may consider identifying a working group or small team of individuals responsible for keeping up with changes and sharing information with a larger community.

Leverage Your Skillset

Research administrators possess a wide range of skills – we are analytical, creative, and resourceful. These skills position us well to help researchers navigate challenges associated with changing funding sources and identify new funding sources.

Many institutions have research development functions that source and share funding opportunities with their researchers. Subscribing to these communications can help you proactively become familiar with the unique requirements of different funding sources.

Expand Your Internal Network

Building relationships is key to our collective success. Our community excels at sharing information and resources with each other, and you can help build a “community of practice” within your institution to share resources and expertise.

Engage actively in existing research administrator forums at your institution. If none exist, see if there is appetite to start one. Even small efforts, like having lunch with an administrator from a different department or using intranet sites to share helpful resources, can foster a sense of community. Group chats on your IM platform can also facilitate quick information sharing and questions. An internal sense of community can help you navigate institutional nuances and support your emotional resilience.

Collaborate Across Functions

As we all know, research administration is just one piece of the puzzle at our institutions. We rely on the success of our colleagues in research administration-adjacent functions, like procurement, human resources, faculty affairs, and information technology. Similar to how you might foster collaboration with other research administrators, spend time getting to know colleagues in other critical support roles. By better understanding the broader environment in which our institutions operate, we enhance our ability to think creatively and solve problems.

Communicate Up, Down, and Sideways

Effective communication is essential during times of change and uncertainty. As research administrators, we are often the first point of contact for faculty members who may have a range of responses to change. Aligned to your institution’s approach, share information with faculty members so they are aware of changes and know how to respond if they receive questions from funding agencies or media.

Additionally, use appropriate forums to communicate with your leadership team. Leaders are pulled in many different directions and appreciate clear, concise communication that shares information about interactions with faculty members, feedback from and communications with funding agencies, and other needs that will help research administrators be successful. When presenting issues to leadership, accompany them with potential solutions. Even if the solution is not adopted, leaders value having suggestions to consider.

Remain Curious

Curiosity drives research—it is the basis for how our society continues to learn and grow. Face change head-on by being curious. Being asked to adopt a new set of procedures or technology? Understand the drivers behind change and look for opportunities to provide input so you can help your institution improve operations. Staring down large-scale changes to the funding environment? Challenge your own status quo and think about ways you might be able to adapt your work by using some of the strategies we provided in this article. We do not intend to minimize the real emotion that accompanies change, but we also know that this community is resilient and open-minded, and reminding ourselves of our capacity to be curious can help us reset.

Conclusion

Navigating changes to research administration requires a proactive and adaptable approach. By staying informed, leveraging our diverse skillsets, and fostering collaboration both within and outside our research administration community, we can effectively manage the challenges that come our way. Building strong internal networks and maintaining open lines of communication with colleagues and leadership will further enhance our ability to respond to changes and support our institutions. Embracing curiosity and remaining open to new ideas will not only help us adapt but also drive innovation and growth in our profession. Together, we can ensure a vibrant and resilient future for research administration. N

Amanda Ferguson is Senior Director, Education & Research at Huron Consulting. Amanda works with research institutions, universities and academic medical centers to develop and optimize compliance programs and research operations. She co-leads Huron’s research security and conficts of interest teams and has deep experience in pre- and post-award research administration. She can be reached at aferguson@huronconsultinggroup.com.

Hot Topic: Strategies for Navigating Change

By Carpantato ‘Tanta’ Myles

As we continue along this path of funding uncertainty and rapid changes at the federal level through executive orders and their implementation by agencies, research administrators must develop processes to adapt to these swift updates. We must move beyond the nightly and weekend reviews of executive orders, policies, regulatory changes, and related lawsuits. Strategies for adapting to the unique environment are essential.

For this issue, we are highlighting the article by Amanda Ferguson at Huron Consulting. In it, Amanda emphasizes the need for research administrators to actively adapt to the rapidly changing landscape of federal funding for research. The article outlines strategies such as staying informed about policy changes, leveraging diverse skills, building internal networks, collaborating across functions, communicating effectively, and maintaining curiosity. By proactively fostering collaboration, research administrators can navigate challenges, support their

institutions, and drive innovation within their profession for a resilient future.

Developing strategies to enhance agility in today’s landscape will provide lasting advantages for research administrators. Stay connected, leverage your network, and cultivate a growth mindset to navigate and tackle obstacles. Those in the profession have consistently adapted to and overcome challenges; the present circumstances are no exception. N

Carpantato ‘Tanta’ Myles, EdD, 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.

From Stalemate to Agreement: The Finer Art of Negotiations

By Lisa Zeytoonian

It is safe to say that we have all experienced difficult conversations, relationships, negotiations, etc., in our personal and professional lives, along with the feelings of frustration, unfulfillment, and a range of negative emotions those bring. Seeing eye-to-eye with your co-worker, boss, direct reports, partner, spouse, or child seems increasingly difficult, especially during the last few years. From a contract negotiation point of view, I can tell you there is a “me first” mentality of putting one’s interests ahead of the greater good, which seems to take priority over the end goal. Nevertheless, I know we can all agree we are each dealing with personal issues and complexities in the background, affecting how we each deal with the here and now. It is past time that we take stock of what is lost in this approach: compromise, comradery, partnership, and trust.

In 1995, my then-employer inquired if I wanted to take on a new responsibility. After making it through the company’s most recent reorganization, it seemed wise to say “yes” to learning this new skill: contract management. Managing utility-type contracts was not even on my list of new and exciting things to learn at that company, but they needed someone to organize, maintain, and report on these types of contracts. Truthfully, I still had no idea what I said “yes” to, but I went forth full steam ahead. Little did I know then that this skill would prove to be what has and continues to define my professional career today.

During the past three decades, I have had opportunities to learn, grow, and apply my contract management, negotiation styles, organization, and people skills to many types of contracting scenarios and industries—from utilities, defense contracting, non-profit, commercial construction, and now to the post-award process for research grants at MaineHealth.

Along the way, I have benefitted from a myriad of training courses, countless workshops, conferences, and books to learn about all aspects of contract management and negotiation styles, how to deal with complex negotiations, people, etc. I have realized that all the tactics and styles I have learned to finalize most post-award issues boil down to a few things.

• Confidence: Do you feel confident in the subject matter you are negotiating?

• Team: Bring the right people along with you during tough negotiations.

• Be patient: Most times, difficult negotiations could take months.

• Look ahead: Anticipate contracting issues based on previous experience.

During a complicated negotiation with the government, some key people from our technical and financial teams involved in the project joined me on many conference calls and emails. Their knowledge and support in the negotiation process proved vital in past negotiations, and this situation was no different. Despite many attempts to have the government contracting officer (CO) see things our way, he was not “hearing” our issues or understanding our interests, which motivated us to take our position. During each successive weekly and monthly internal project update meeting, the team and I had nothing new to report to leadership. We were no closer to agreeing on the terms or signing the contract, even months after the award. The contract (and project) became known as one of those “problem” contracts and was held in a stagnant holding pattern. We were all tired and frustrated, and we saw no path forward. What made us all feel more deflated was that the company was okay working at risk without a signed contract, knowing that the project was essential to the government, funded, and therefore would eventually be signed.

After nearly a year of our efforts to make the CO see our point of view and several requests to meet in person with the CO in Washington, D.C., we finally got the green light from leadership. A few days later, the company team and I met with the CO to pour over spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations of the financial and technical issues impeding the negotiation process. After spending the afternoon with the CO laying out our negotiating positions, it was clear that the CO did not have the right people supporting him through the process as I did. It was evident through body language and communication style that the CO lacked the technical expertise to understand the reasoning behind our position and the confidence to support his stance. I thought I would have acted the same way if I were in his position—with no support! If I were without the

support of technical engineers and financial accountants to support our company’s stance, I would be at a loss as well.

Speaking for myself and from a post-award perspective, a contracts manager usually has a shallow but wide understanding of the entire contracting process from cradle to grave. Sure, I have dabbled in pre-award tasks like budget creation and some technical issues, but I know those skills are not in my toolbox, nor my forte. I thought they were not in the CO’s toolbox either.

At the end of the meeting, we still found ourselves at an impasse. I asked the CO to invite his technical and financial representatives to join our meeting the next morning as we had to fly back home that evening. Thankfully, his government team was able to join us and eventually resolve our outstanding issues. The CO’s team provided the missing pieces of our unresolved issues and communicated to my team that a compromise could be reached quickly. The contract was fully executed the next week.

Looking back, what helped the most during the process was taking the time to step back and see points of view from both sides of the negotiating table. Maintaining composure, respect, and patience during a difficult negotiation takes time, personal development, and experience. What has also helped me see past the difficulty in all kinds of relationships is something I have learned from Toltec wisdom called The Four Agreements (Ruiz, 1997).

1.Be impeccable with your word.

2.Don’t take anything personally.

3.Don’t make assumptions.

4.Always do your best.

These are agreements we make with ourselves. They remind us of our innate wisdom, which unfortunately gets filtered out through life experiences. Since publishing The Four Agreements, the author has updated the book by adding a fifth agreement: Be skeptical, but learn to listen (Ruiz, 2010). All these elements play a key role in any professional and personal communication. Keeping them in the forefront of each interaction allows us to resolve conflicts respectfully and swiftly.

It is worth noting that the above is predicated on the human element. However, artificial intelligence (AI) may put us at risk of losing that human element, such as keen observation and communication. It could be that we’re standing on the precipice of allowing machines to take over part of the negotiating process; what used to take us months to negotiate now will take only a few days by the machine. But at what cost? What will be lost? Can an algorithm detect what is really needed for both sides to come to an amicable agreement? Only time will tell. N

References

Ruiz, D.M. (1997). The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom (A Toltec Wisdom Book). Amber-Allen Publishing.

Ruiz, D.M. (2010). The Fifth Agreement: A Practical Guide to Self Mastery. Amber-Allen Publishing.

Lisa L. Zeytoonian is the Contracts Manager at MaineHealth Institute for Research (MHIR) in Scarborough, Maine. Lisa’s responsibilities at MHIR include managing all post-award activities for research grants. She can be reached at Lisa.Zeytoonian@MaineHealth.org.

Board Update

In March, the NCURA Board of Directors met virtually for our meeting. President Denise Moody welcomed the Board members and gave welcoming remarks, including:

■ Recognizing and thanking the PRA Co-Chairs, Jennifer Cory and Darren May, FRA Co-Chairs, Anne Albinak and Jessica McDonough, for their year-long efforts in planning the 2025 conferences along with their program committees and NCURA staff.

■ Afﬁrming NCURA’s commitment to accessibility, engagement, and inclusion over the last thirty-ﬁve years.

■ Planning for the upcoming national and regional leadership convention that will be held in September.

NCURA Executive Director Kathleen Larmett shared some updates with the Board:

■ The NCURA membership team has been working to provide ways NCURA can support both its membership and others in the research community during this extraordinary time:

■ A new Changing Federal Landscape Collaborate group was created and is available to both members and non-members.

■ At the ﬁrst of March, NCURA opened the NCURA Career Center to non-members the ﬁrst week of each month.

■ Monthly free webinars will be open to the full research community to address the current Federal landscape that is impacting research.

■ NCURA is working with other higher education organizations to discuss ways to support each other.

An AM67 update was given by Vice President Shannon Sutton who, along with her Co-Chairs, Katherine Durben from Marquette University, and Candice Ferguson from Georgia State University, along with the program committee and NCURA staff are hard at work creating a robust program for attendees. The theme for AM67 is “Forward Focused: Priming for Change.”

The Board members also discussed at length how NCURA will remain focused on our core mission to advance the research administration profession and support research together during the changing federal landscape. The Board agreed that we will stay true to our core values of integrity, excellence, service, collegiality, transparency, and inclusiveness.

Finally, the Board approved four new Peer Reviewers recommended by the Select Committee on Reer Review.

On a personal note, it was nice to connect with my NCURA family during FRA/PRA in March!

Diane Hillebrand

NCURA Secretary

Diane Hillebrand, CRA, is the NCURA Secretary, and Departmental Research Administration Traveling Workshop Faculty. She serves as the Assistant Director, Research & Sponsored Program Development at the University of North Dakota. She can be reached at Diane.Hillebrand@UND.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 Insttute for Biomedical Innovaton

Vice President

Shannon Suton

Georgia State University

Immediate Past President

Kris Monahan

Harvard University

Treasurer

Kay Gilstrap

Georgia State University

Secretary

Diane Hillebrand

University of North Dakota

Executve Director

Kathleen M. Larmet

Natonal Council of University

Research Administrators

Eva Björndal

King’s College London

Natalie Buys

University of Colorado

Anshutz Medical Campus

Jennifer Cory

Stanford University

Jill Frankenfeld

University of Maryland, Baltmore

Katy Gathron

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Melanie Hebl

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Katherine Kissmann

Texas A&M University

Rosemary Madnick

Lundquist Insttute for Biomedical Innovaton

Danielle McElwain

University of South Carolina

Nicole Nichols

Washington University in St. Louis

Scot Niles

Georgia Insttute of Technology

Lamar Oglesby

Rutgers University

Geraldine Pierre

Boston Children’s Hospital

Lori Ann Schultz

Colorado State University

Thomas Spencer

University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

• 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

Adapting to the Realities of Remote Work at a Predominantly Undergraduate Institution and Thriving

By Margarita (Magui) Cardona

Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs) and other small, non-research-intensive institutions may typically be slower to adopt workforce flexibility trends, but the disruption caused by COVID-19 forced PUIs to adapt very quickly to remote work. In-person meetings turned into Zoom calls; conversations became email, Teams messages, or texts. The change was unexpected, but it allowed us the opportunity to show that we could go beyond surviving to thriving.

After the initial shock at being sent home with limited technology wore off, we found ourselves more productive in this new remote environment. Our commutes disappeared, giving us the gift of time before and after our normal work hours. Many of us poured ourselves into our jobs as a distraction to what was going on around us. As the pandemic subsided and schools reopened for in-person teaching, many staff at PUIs were also called back to the office, but not at all of them.

Telework had been in use before the COVID-19 pandemic. Private corporations implemented flexible work schedules, including remote work, long before the pandemic—substantial growth occurred in telework between 2005 and 2015 in pace with advances in technology and communications. Zara Abrams (2019) noted that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that 16% of the total workforce (about 26 million employees) had flexible work arrangements that included telework at least some of the time. In contrast, for institutions of higher education— especially smaller institutions—remote work schedules were largely unheard-of prior to 2020.

After the initial shock… wore off, we found ourselves more productive in this new remote environment.

For a smaller institution of higher education, the University of Baltimore (UB) has a unique history regarding remote work. Founded in 1925 as a graduate and professional school, UB is an urban commuter campus with a student body consisting of mostly working adults; the average undergraduate student age is 30. This made it a prime site for online education. UB offered its first online course in 1995, when only 37 business schools even had functioning websites. In 1999 its faculty began delivering the MBA in an engaging Web environment; it was the first school in the world to offer a fully online AACSB accredited MBA program. Since then, it has grown to offer a multitude of online courses, degree programs, and certificates. Fast forward to March 2020: the Office of Sponsored Research (a shared services center for all grant management activities on campus)

had just gone paperless by implementing Teams as a file sharing and communication tool. Five years later, in 2025, UB is still 100% remote, paperless, and has grown grant and contract activity by ten million dollars. There were three main factors to this success:

1 Institutional Support – From the early days of the pandemic, our leadership ensured we felt supported. Once the immediate emergency of supporting students and faculty to ensure coursework was completed had passed, staff were provided with all the equipment and supplies needed to continue to deliver services in a long-term remote environment.

2 Open Communication – I cannot emphasize how different it is to manage a completely remote team, especially onboarding new employees. Remote teams require frequent and open communication. While finding the balance between email, phone, and virtual meetings may be hard, it is important to meet employees where they are. The chat and call feature in Teams has been a lifeline for remote workers to feel part of the same office.

3 Team Dynamics – Staff work is important and valued, but our physical and emotional wellbeing is more important than anything else. We in OSR start each week with a Monday morning Zoom call, where, along with business, we discuss what is going on outside of work. Our team has gone through important life changes during these past five years, from childbirth to health crises to deep losses, and we have been there for each other every step of the way.

Notwithstanding our success, there are clear downsides to remote work. The need for interpersonal connection is real, even for the introverts among us. We make a point to meet in person at least once or twice a semester and share a meal. We also show up for important on-campus events, like convocation, research engagement day, and the Centennial block party. This allows OSR employees to remain engaged with our mission and the Baltimore community we serve. N

Reference Abrams, Z. (2019). The future of remote work. American Psychological Association, 50(9), 54. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/10/cover-remote-work.

Margarita (Magui) Cardona, CRA, is the Assistant Provost for Sponsored Research at The University of Baltimore. She holds a BS in Chemistry; MS degrees in Chemistry and Materials Science; a certifcate in Government Contracting; and is currently a doctoral candidate in Public Policy at University of Maryland, Baltimore County. She can be reached at mcardona@ubalt.edu.

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

Enhancing Data Collection and Utilization of HERD: SURVEY RESULTS

By Baron G. Wolf, Erin Wallett, and Min Xiao

This report is based upon work supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant number: 2215223. Any opinions, fndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in the materials are those of the authors and do not necessarily refect the views of the U.S. National Science Foundation.

Introduction

Researchers at the University of Kentucky conducted a comprehensive research study of the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey, supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) through Grant #2215223. One part of the study was to assess the perceived levels of difficulty around collecting and reporting the requisite responses for the HERD survey, as well as the utilization of HERD survey results and the effectiveness of current data collection practices among research administration professionals.

The HERD survey is an annual census of U.S. colleges and universities that collects expenditure data to support institutional research and development activities. Data collected from the HERD survey provides important insight into trends related to research at both an institutional and national level. Although participation in the survey is voluntary, the overall response rate is consistently high. NCSES also provides a variety of cumulative data tables which are used by institutions and federal agencies to help inform decision-making.

The Higher Education Research & Development (HERD) Results

Utilization and Data Collection Survey Full Implementation Study was most recently conducted in June 2023. The HERD Survey was administered via an anonymous online link and used a snowball sampling methodology. The survey results were derived from 211 responses from more than 125 higher education institutions across 41 states, including Washington, DC. Of the 211 respondents, 159 completed all questions specifically related to their experience level and involvement with the HERD survey. The primary goal of this particular study element was to better understand the roles and responsibilities of various positions within the institution as they related to the HERD survey, as well as the perceptions of those tasked with preparing versus applying the results of the survey. Additional observations identified potential clarifications that could improve the data collection and reporting process.

Roles and Experience of Respondents

Respondents came from various research administration roles within their institution but were primarily concentrated in analytics, finance, and management. For example, some of the most common job titles reported in the data included Director or Assistant Director; Assistant or Associate Vice President; Business Analyst; Research Administrator; and Senior Data Analyst.

Of the 159 HERD survey respondents, 106 (67%) respondents were directly involved in HERD survey-related data collection as part of their

job responsibilities. Forty-four percent of respondents had five years or less experience specifically in HERD survey data collection, and 55% had six or more years of experience completing the data collection. On average, respondents reported spending 1.96 months collecting the data required for survey completion.

Perceived Difficulty of Specific Questions

In examining the perceived ease of completing each question on the HERD survey using a Likert scale ranging from Very Easy to Very Difficult. Three questions were identified as the most difficult to complete:

• Question 15: Demographic and educational categories of research and development (R&D) personnel.

• Question 16: The number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) devoted to R&D.

• Question 6: R&D expenditures from basic research, applied research, and experimental development categories.

Conversely, the preparers reported these three questions as the easiest to complete:

• Question 13: Institutional capitalization thresholds for software and equipment.

• Question 4: R&D expenditures from medical school.

• Question 12: Direct costs and indirect costs.

Utility and Trustworthiness of HERD Survey Results

Senior leadership plays a critical role in leveraging HERD survey results for institutional strategy. Leaders and decision-makers reported using HERD data for three primary purposes: 1) to identify growth areas in specific disciplines (e.g., engineering or natural sciences), 2) benchmark against peer institutions to evaluate competitiveness in securing federal funding, and 3) to inform decisions about resource allocation to underfunded research areas.

Regarding trustworthiness, respondents generally held a neutral attitude towards the trustworthiness of HERD survey results. Some respondents had concerns over the consistency of data across institutions, such as varying interpretations of HERD survey definitions and methodologies.

Value Placed on the HERD Survey

On average, respondents agreed that senior leadership places a high priority on compiling accurate survey responses at their institution. Respondents also generally agreed that their institution values work by the HERD survey data collection personnel.

Possible Improvements to Data Collection Process and Reporting

Based on feedback from respondents, areas for potentially improving the data collection process and reporting HERD survey results are summarized as follows:

1. Refine instructions and definitions

Respondents recommended using clear and consistent definitions. For example, they suggested creating a comprehensive glossary comprised of key terms and definitions to standardize interpretations across institutions. Additionally, more detailed guidance for subjective questions may be needed, such requiring classifications of research expenditures and personnel categories.

2. Build and integrate data collection systems

Many respondents emphasized the need for automation and integration to reduce the manual burden of data collection. They suggested incorporating HERD survey results into existing enterprise resource planning systems to streamline data extraction and by developing standardized templates or software tools to automate calculations and categorizations.

3. Provide training and support

Respondents further emphasized the value of training sessions and ongoing support from NCSES, such as hosting webinars and workshops that would help survey preparers address common challenges and solutions. Offering one-on-one consultation sessions or office hours to address specific questions was another suggestion.

4. Accelerate reporting

Respondents highlighted the importance of faster reporting that would reduce the lag time between survey submission and release of results. This would ensure HERD survey results are relevant, timely, and useful for strategic decision-making rather than outdated measures of research and development spending.

5. Tailor support for under-resourced institutions

Among participating institutions, we noted disparity in their resources and systems. Smaller and less research-intensive institutions indicated they often face challenges in allocating their limited resources to complete the survey, such as staff and technology resources or expertise. Respondents suggested that NCSES provide additional support specifically tailored to smaller institutions to simplify reporting options. Meanwhile, the desire for encouraging collaboration between institutions to share information, best practices, and resources regarding HERD data collection was also expressed. Respondents also emphasized creating more funding opportunities to support infrastructure improvements for under-resourced institutions.

Conclusion

The HERD Survey study highlights its critical role in shaping the research landscape across U.S. higher education and policy development. While the survey is widely considered a valuable tool by respondents, some improvements may be worth consideration. If NCSES administrators could continue their efforts to improve and simplify the HERD survey process for institutions of all sizes—such as easing data collection, refining survey questions, increasing training and documentation to assist with accurate and consistent interpretation and responses—all would benefit. These improvements will not only reduce the burden on preparers but also ensure trustworthiness and enhance utility of the survey results for institutional and national decision-making, eventually maximizing its impact.

The full report and analysis of the HERD survey section of this study is available online: https://doi.org/10.13023/cshw-5s09. N

Baron G. Wolf is the Director of Research Analytics at the University of Kentucky where he leads efforts to use a data-informed approach to research administration decision making and support. He can be reached at baron.wolf@uky.edu.

Erin Wallett is the Director of Research Financial Services at the University of Kentucky where she leads a variety of initiatives including preparing the institution’s annual HERD survey submission. She can be reached at ekwall0@uky.edu.

Min Xiao is a recent Ph.D. graduate and serves at the Research Associate on this funded research. Min can be reached at min.xiao2@uky.edu.

A Guide to

Ef

ective 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 ofces 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.

26 TH ANNUAL FINANCIAL RESEARCH

ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE (FRA)

Conference: March 17 - 18, 2025 |

Workshop Day: March 19, 2025

The 26th Annual FRA Conference welcomed nearly 1100 attendees from all over the world. The nickname “Sunny San Diego” proved to be ﬁtting, providing a beautiful backdrop for our conference theme, “Navigating Waves of Innovation.” Just to keep things interesting, we experienced a brief surprise storm that reminded us to make the most of the otherwise sunny moments. The Hilton Bayfront venue offered stunning waterfront views and inviting spaces for colleagues and friends to enjoy the sunshine together.

FRA Recap

At the forefront of the event was Dr. Quincy Byrdsong, Vice President of Research Operations, Academics, and Research at Ballad Health. His expertise in navigating complex institutional and societal challenges shone brightly as he facilitated a ﬁreside chat with our keynote speaker, Dr. Mona Hanna. Dr. Mona serves as the Associate Dean for Public Health and the C. S. Mott Endowed Professor of Public Health at Michigan State University’s College of Human Medicine. As a pediatrician, scientist, activist, and author, she has earned recognition as one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Inﬂuential People in the World and was celebrated as one of USA Today’s Women of the Century for her pivotal role in addressing the Flint water crisis and driving recovery efforts. Additionally, she received the 2017 MIT Disobedience Award, honoring her commitment to ethical disobedience aimed at challenging societal injustices. The conversation between Dr. Byrdsong and Dr. Mona inspired us, reminding us of our power to effect positive change and how critical research administration is to lifesaving initiatives worldwide. It was a poignant discussion that set a powerful tone for the conference.

Thanks to the exceptional efforts of our Program Committee, we had access to over 90 concurrent sessions, 45 discussion groups, and 15 post-conference workshops. Their dedication over the past nine months ensured that there was something for everyone, regardless of their role or experience level, and we are truly grateful for their hard work!

We extend our heartfelt thanks to NCURA President Denise Moody for the opportunity to co-chair FRA. The experience went far beyond simply cochairing; it showcased the unity of our professional community. Together, we can accomplish much more than just navigating the waves of research administration; we can conquer them, master the surf, and emerge even stronger.

We greatly appreciate the invaluable support and guidance from the NCURA staff, especially Kati Barber and Tracey King; their assistance ensured we stayed aﬂoat!

We hope this spring brings the resilience needed to dive into the waves ahead.

With gratitude, conference co-chairs,

Ann

e Jessica

Anne Albinak

Johns Hopkins University

Whiting School of Engineering

Jessica McDonough

The Lundquist Institute

Ofce of Research Administration

PRA Recap

19TH ANNUAL PRE-AWARD RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE (PRA)

Conference: March 20 - 21, 2025

Workshop Day: March 19, 2025

This year, more than 800 of us in research administration, gathered under the sunny skies of San Diego and participated in over 125 thought-provoking sessions for the 2025 Pre-Award Research Administration (PRA) Conference. The energy was unmistakable as colleagues reconnected, new friendships were formed, and our community embraced the conference theme, Charting New Horizons.

We opened with an inspiring keynote from Dr. Andrea Hollingsworth, Compassionate Agility: Leading with Care and Efﬁciency in Times of Change. Dr. Hollingsworth offered powerful insights on leading with both resilience and empathy in uncertain times, encouraging us to balance operational excellence with humanity in our roles.

Our theme this year, Charting New Horizons was particularly ﬁtting as we face ongoing change and uncertainty in the federal funding landscape. It was refreshing to watch the NCURA community come together, share strategies, and demonstrate a remarkable ability to adapt and innovate. The sessions throughout the conference underscored our collective commitment to moving research administration forward with creativity, courage and compassion. We are deeply grateful to the PRA Program Committee for developing and maintaining an outstanding program, our volunteers, tech team and sponsors for their invaluable support, and the incredible NCURA staff—especially Kati Barber, Tracey King, Kathleen Larmett, and Tara Bishop—whose hard work made this event seamless.

As part of a recent initiative to celebrate and elevate the impact of research, participants received car magnets proudly displaying the hashtag #ResearchImprovesYourLife. More than just a giveaway, these magnets serve as moving reminders - on highways, in parking lots, and along city streets - of the vital role research plays in our daily lives.

Thank you to NCURA President Denise Moody for your leadership, and to all attendees for making this year’s conference unforgettable. We can’t wait to see you next year for the next PRA adventure!

PRA Conference Co-chairs,

Jennifer Cory Darren May Stanford University Auburn University

Understanding the 2022 Changes to SBIR/STTR Vetting Requirements

By Paula Robinson and Amanda Humphrey

The Small Business Innovation and Development Act of 1982 was initially enacted to stimulate technological innovation, increase private-sector commercialization of innovations that originated from federal funding, and involve small businesses in research and development to increase competition. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants provide opportunities for small businesses to collaborate on research and development; while Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants provide opportunities for small businesses to work with universities to transfer inventions to industry. To provide stability for participants in the program and further promote important research and economic growth, in 2022 the act was extended through 2025. This extension also included changes that have consequences for SBIR/STTR grants.

Imagine a scenario where “Dr. White” is a National Science Foundation (NSF)-supported faculty at “Science University” located in the United States. Her work primarily focuses on robotics development for manufacturing. Arguably, this technology possesses dual use purposes (civil and military application). Dr. White also is part of a startup company called “RoboCo,” that has licensed the technology from Science University. Through RoboCo, Dr. White submitted a Department of Defense (DOD) STTR application.

As part of the Just-in-Time (JIT) process, Dr. White submitted an SBIR-STTR Foreign Disclosure Form referencing “ABC Investors,” a U.S.-based investment firm. ABC Investors is a subsidiary of a foreign entity, which Dr. White properly disclosed. However, Dr. White omitted disclosure of an additional partnership between that foreign entity and “Robots PLC,” a foreign-owned multi-national corporation that is interested in testing her robotics in one of their warehouses. Dr. White had not vetted ABC Investors thoroughly and had assumed a multi-national company operating in the United States was safe to work with from a regulatory standpoint. Adding a further complication, a confidentiality clause exists in the partnership agreement.

The program officer seemed excited about Dr. White’s proposal, so she was surprised when the award was denied.

Why was the award denied?

The SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022 (SBIR and STTR Act, 2022) requires federal funding agencies to establish a Foreign Review process and accompanying metrics to evaluate research security risks. Foreign Disclosure review takes place during the Just-in-Time (JIT) process, after the merit review is completed.

The SBIR-STTR Foreign Disclosure form collects information that is relevant to the five assessment criteria: 1. foreign ownership and control, 2.financial ties and obligations to a Foreign Country of Concern, 3. participation in a Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program, 4. cybersecurity practices, and 5. intellectual property

Dr. White was able to discuss the declined award with her Program Officer (PO). The PO mentioned that they had no concerns about ABC Investors, which was appropriately reported without any identified risks. However, the PO chided her for not disclosing the involvement with Robots PLC, which was only discovered upon screening the disclosed entity. Dr. White pointed to the confidentiality clause in her partnership agreement, but the PO was adamant that the relationship required disclosure. The PO had become especially concerned when internal DOD risk assessment tools revealed an article written in a foreign language touting the expansion of Robots PLC in a “Foreign Country of Concern” as defined under the Act. The article also mentioned Robots PLC was testing new technology for the military in that country. The risk assessment office had questions about how Dr. White would prevent the subsidiary in the Foreign Country of Concern from accessing U.S. technology.

Ultimately the PO and the risk assessment office found that Dr. White’s failure to disclose the partnership, in addition to the information surfaced during review, created concerns that RoboCo was not sufficiently able to mitigate the identified risks.

Did Science University have a role to play?

Science University was not culpable for Dr. White’s failure to properly disclose the relationship, since Dr. White was acting outside her capacity as a faculty member of Science University. While the institution is not at fault, the grant was not funded. Ensuring faculty have the right tools to help them succeed in this complex compliance environment is important to fostering the innovation economy. Experiences at Northeastern University reveal that collaborating with our technology transfer colleagues to help communicate these changes to faculty through individual discussions, trainings, and written resources can provide an indirect benefit to sponsored funding. N

Reference

SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022, 15 U.S.C. §631 et seq. (2022). https://www.congress. gov/117/plaws/publ183/PLAW-117publ183.pdf.

Paula Robinson is a Compliance Specialist for Northeastern University’s Research Compliance team with an expertise in Conficts of Interest; she provides comprehensive guidance to manage outside activities. Paula holds degrees from Bryant University and Emmanuel College. She is a past recipient of the NCURA Scholarship and currently serves on the Awards Committee for NCURA Region I. She can be reached at p.robinson@northeastern.edu.

Amanda Humphrey is the Chief Research Operations Offcer for Northeastern University. Amanda oversees research security, export compliance, and training programs; and contributes to compliance and operational objectives. She contributes to NCURA, FDP, and ARIO. Amanda has degrees from Smith College, University College London, and Northeastern University. She can be reached at a.humphrey@northeastern.edu.

NCURA Education Scholarship Fund Select Committee (ESFSC)

With the start of the new year, the NCURA Education Scholarship Fund Select Committee (ESFSC) has appointed new members with fresh ideas and renewed excitement to continue the great work of past members!

This committee oversees the Education Scholarship Fund (ESF) to support NCURA members seeking a degree or certificate in research administration. This fund, established in 2011, provides monetary support to current NCURA members. In past years, applicants must be seeking a master’s degree in research administration. This year, the eligibility has been expanded to any degree or certificate program in research administration. The committee facilitates fundraising, administers the scholarship application process, reviews the applicants, and manages the awards. This year, 10 members from 6 NCURA regions are volunteering in the committee, led by chair Amanda Tan, who is a past recipient (2018) of the scholarship and currently serves as Director of Research Administration, Operations and Strategy at UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. The vice chair is Joseph Gibbs, who is also a past recipient (2019) of the scholarship and currently serves as a Contract and Grant Officer in the Office of Contract and Grant Administration at the UCLA Office of Research Administration. The committee is also supported by Audrey Nwosu who serves as the Staff Liaison.

to new members. If you are interested in volunteering for this committee, look for the NCURA email later this year to submit an application.

Committee Duties

The committee is further split into 3 additional subcommittees:

1. Relationship Building: Manages communications with regions I-VII leadership, educational institutions, and former recipients. Disseminates scholarship opportunities and coordinates volunteer and donation opportunities.

2. International Outreach: Manages communications with region VIII leadership and international research institutions. Identifies and builds opportunities to collaborate and support education for international research administrators and supporting infrastructure.

The other 8 members, appointed by the NCURA board for 2 years, are research administration professionals from the US, UK, and Italy. Two of the members, Meaghan Ventura and Jeannine Voll, are also past ESF recipients (both 2018). Six of these members have previously served on this committee, allowing for continued transference of knowledge and skills

Name ESFSC Role and Subcommittee Institution

Amanda Tan Chair Univ of CaliforniaLos Angeles

Joseph Gibbs Vice Chair (Relationship Building) Univ of CaliforniaLos Angeles

Audrey Nwosu ESFSC Staff Liaison NCURA

Melissa Freudenberger Member (Relationship Building) Clemson Univ

Hansa Magee Member (Communications) Univ of MissouriColumbia

Luigi Pellegrino Member (International) Bocconi Univ

Charles Shannon Member (Communications, International) Loughborough Univ

Stacy Stuart Member (Relationship Building) Univ of Arkansas

Meaghan Ventura Member (Communications) Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital

Jeannine Voll Member (Relationship Building) Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

Annie Wu Member (International) Univ of Houston

3. Communications: Manages Advocates for Education (AFE) Collaborate Group - Invites new scholarship recipients, new committee members, and other supporters to AFE and posts regular updates on ESFSC events and happenings. Manages NCURA Magazine submissions - plans and coordinates article submissions throughout the year on behalf of the ESFSC.

Updates for 2025

The Communications Subcommittee is a new subcommittee this year to focus on creating written communications to the larger NCURA community. This subcommittee also keeps in touch with past scholarship recipients so that they can keep engaged with the community and share their educational experiences and encourage other members to apply. If you are a past ESF recipient and would like to connect, please let us know!

This year, the scholarship will be expanded to support members pursuing undergraduate research administration degrees/certifications (previously the Fund was reserved for NCURA members pursuing a master’s degree only). Stay tuned for additional information and visit the Education Scholarship Fund (ESF) for more updated eligibility information. For more information about EFS, readers are encouraged to connect with the committee’s communication team. Readers may also consider joining the Advocates for Education community in Collaborate by visiting collaborate.ncura.edu and searching for the community. This community is open to all NCURA members who are interested in fostering community support for members seeking degrees in research administration. N

Hansa Magee, PhD, is Director of Research Analytics, Division of Research, Innovation and Impact, at the University of MissouriColumbia. Her team provides research and sponsored project reporting, competitive intelligence, and NSF HERD survey. Her participation in ESFSC started in 2025. She can be reached at hansa.magee@missouri.edu.

Table 1. ESFSC volunteers

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!

Research Administration in Europe

How King’s College London has Adapted to Shifting Research Funding Landscapes and Remains Ready for Future Change

By Alex Kirk and Caroline Barbour

Introduction

Change is constant and unpredictable in research administration, requiring institutions to be agile and forward-thinking in their approach to funding and compliance. This is relevant now more than ever in a time of new governments, fiscal pressures for universities, and new opportunities and challenges on the horizon. At King’s College London, we have a varied portfolio of research grant funders, including a considerable number of grants funded by US federal and non-federal funders, in particular the National Institutes of Health.

We are no strangers to an uncertain and unpredictable funding landscape—one of the most significant shifts for us in recent years has been Brexit, which threatened the UK’s access to European research funding. In response, King’s College London had to adapt swiftly, refining its funding strategies and internal administration processes to ensure continuity in research support. This experience reinforced our ability to navigate change, better positioning the institution to handle future shifts. This article explores King’s adaptability through both pre-award and post-award perspectives, offering a view of how research institutions can remain resilient in evolving funding landscapes. Our experiences in EU funding have stood us in good stead for responding to recent developments and uncertainties in US Government research funding, and we hope that this case study makes useful reading for our US colleagues working in research management and administration (RMA) roles.

The Brexit Challenge: A Case Study in Managing Change

On 23rd June 2016 a referendum was held in the United Kingdom, which resulted in the decision to leave the European Union, a union of countries of which the UK had been a member since 1973. The implications of this for research funding were alarming, as the UK had been in the top three recipients of EU research grant funding, through the €80 billion Horizon 2020 programme. To be eligible to receive EU research funding, a university must be in an EU member state or associated country (a country whose government has an agreement with the EU and pays a contribution in order to be eligible to receive funding). With Horizon 2020’s end date looming, there were immediate questions over whether the UK would associate to the EU’s next framework programme, Horizon Europe (running from 2021-27 and with a total budget of approximately €95 billion).

The short version of the story is that the UK did associate to Horizon Europe, but not until January 2024 after lengthy and complex negotiation between the EU and UK governments. The long version is a rollercoaster of ups and downs, uncertainties, new funders and portals, and sadly an unavoidable knock to the confidence of UK-based researchers applying for EU funding. During the long delay to UK association, the UK Government put in place the UKRI Horizon Europe Guarantee, so that UK entities could still apply for EU funding and continue being part of EU collaborations. Applications were submitted to and evaluated by the EU, but funding for UK entities was provided by the UK Government through UK Research and

Innovation (UKRI). This was great news for our researchers but posed new challenges for RMAs who had to learn how to navigate the UK guarantee scheme and portal, understand UKRI terms and conditions, and in some cases support reporting to both the EU and UKRI on projects which receive funding from both funders. What was originally intended to be a temporary scheme became an important funder in its own right— the UKRI Guarantee has, as of Spring 2025, awarded over £2 billion (over $2.5 billion) to UK institutions.

Brexit created significant uncertainty for UK institutions, particularly regarding access to EU funding streams. From a pre-award perspective, the primary challenge was the ambiguity surrounding eligibility for European grants. In response, King’s prioritized internal communication with its researchers to make sure they were kept informed of the situation as it developed and reached out to international collaborators to reassure them and keep them informed of the latest developments. The Pre-Award team had to adapt their processes to accommodate these changes and to ensure that funding applications remained competitive and compliant with new requirements.

On the post-award side, Brexit brought financial and compliance adjustments as regulations shifted. Managing transitional funding arrangements required close coordination with funders and researchers, ensuring that projects could continue without disruption. Compliance teams needed to understand new reporting and audit requirements and provide clear guidance to researchers navigating these changes. By addressing these challenges head-on, King’s strengthened its capacity to manage complex funding transitions.

Insights Gained: Building Resilience in Research Administration

Our experiences with Brexit fostered a culture of adaptability at King’s, reinforcing the importance of proactive research administration. One of the key strategies that helped our institution stay ahead was maintaining open communication with funders and researchers. By staying informed about policy changes and funding opportunities, King’s was able to provide timely support to its research community. Additionally, strengthening internal systems, such as our award management platform, allowed for greater flexibility, ensuring that administrative processes could quickly adjust to new funding requirements. Scenario planning and risk mitigation became essential tools, helping King’s anticipate potential challenges and develop strategies to address them before they became obstacles.

The experience was especially eye-opening for the International Pre-Award and Post-Award teams, who are responsible for supporting EU

and US Government grant applications and awards at King’s. It’s been a lively time to work with both of these funding streams, and we are hopeful that our recent adventures in EU funding have left us well prepared to weather approaching storms in the US funding landscape.

The Power of Networking in Maintaining Resilience

One key factor in maintaining resilience has, for us, been staying in contact with existing RMA networks and building new ones. Following Brexit, this came chiefly from our counterparts working in international funding at other UK institutions and sharing our experiences and challenges with each other, but over time our relationships with EU colleagues became key to communicating the message that we were still an active and keen research partner.

Similarly, our NCURA colleagues have been an invaluable source of knowledge and support in early 2025 as we work to understand and respond to new policies at the NIH and other US government funders. This was crucial in January 2025, when a communications freeze resulted in the NIH withdrawing from a federal funding workshop hosted at King’s. With two working days to go before the workshop, we faced the challenge of filling most of the four-day agenda. Thankfully we have an incredible network of counterparts at European and American institutions who we called on to help, and we were able to deliver the workshop in what was a truly collaborative effort. It was an incredible testament to the dedication and hard work of RMAs and an example of how we can find new opportunities to learn and connect through challenging situations.

Priming for Future Change

As research funding and policy continue to evolve, King’s remains committed to staying ahead of emerging challenges. The institution is continuously refining its funding strategy and administrative processes to ensure responsiveness to new developments. Collaboration and knowledge-sharing within the research administration community play a crucial role in this effort, allowing institutions to learn from one another and implement best practices. Continuous improvement is key to maintaining resilience, ensuring that King’s remains a leader in research support, no matter what changes lie ahead.

Conclusion

Adaptability and innovation are essential in research administration, allowing institutions to thrive in an ever-changing funding landscape. The lessons King’s has learned from Brexit have strengthened its ability to navigate future shifts, positioning it—and other institutions—for continued success. Embracing a forward-focused mindset ensures that research administration remains dynamic, responsive, and ready to support groundbreaking research in challenging environments. N

Alex Kirk is a Senior Research Grants Manager within the Post-Award team at King’s College London. He oversees compliance and audit matters and manages the Post-Award International team. He can be reached at alexander.1.kirk@kcl.ac.uk.

Caroline Barbour is a Senior Research Funding Associate and leads the Pre-Award International team at King’s College London, supporting applications, award set-up and contracts for all research grants funded by the European Commission and US federal funders. She can be reached at caroline.barbour@kcl.ac.uk.

Why Getting Initial Costing Right Matters for Research Sustainability Nailing the BUDGET:

By Charles Shannon

For researchers, getting the budget right in a grant application isn’t just about winning funding, it’s about ensuring the project’s long-term success. When done correctly, initial costing can distinguish between a project that thrives and one that fizzles out due to financial missteps. Here’s why accurate initial budgeting is crucial, how pre-award finance teams play a pivotal role, and what you need to know to get it right.

Why Accurate Initial Budgeting is Crucial In research, the budget does more than pay for experiments and equipment, it sets the stage for everything that follows. Imagine getting halfway through a project only to realise you’re out of money. That’s a nightmare no researcher wants to face. A good budget, covering all potential costs—from researcher salaries to administrative fees—ensures your project can keep moving forward without hitting a financial brick wall. Overlooking even small expenses can lead to big setbacks.

When projects exceed budget, departments often must dip into reserves or redirect funds from other initiatives. This juggling act can undermine the overall quality of research at an institution. On the other hand, well-costed projects maintain financial stability and allow research efforts to flourish without siphoning resources from other important work.

“Pre-award ﬁnance teams are the unsung heroes behind many successful grant applications.”

Sponsors don’t just hand over money unconditionally; they have requirements for spending that money. Get the budget right, and you’ll avoid the stress of juggling funds to meet reporting standards. Get the budget wrong and you could suffer penalties or restrictions on future funding.

When the budget is accurate, available resources are clear and planning is smooth, allowing for realistic timelines, proper staffing, and the ability to anticipate changes. Having a financial cushion makes adapting to shifts much easier, especially in long-term research. A realistic budget also shows funders you’ve thought through exactly how you’ll use the money you’re asking for. By demonstrating a commitment to responsible financial management, this foresight builds sponsor confidence and makes securing future funding easier.

Pre-Award Finance Teams Play a Pivotal Role

Pre-award finance teams are the unsung heroes behind many successful grant applications. These teams play a crucial role in guiding academics through the often-complex budgeting process and ensuring that all financial aspects of a research proposal are well considered. Getting the initial costing right isn’t just about ticking boxes on a grant application— it’s about laying a solid foundation for that research. Pre-award finance teams are invaluable partners in this process, offering the expertise and support needed to ensure that the budget is not only accurate but also aligned with the project’s long-term goals. While it may seem tedious, accurate budgeting saves time, money, and stress in the long run. It enables the delivery of meaningful results and supports a thriving research environment. Think of it as an investment in the success of your work and the sustainability of your institution’s research ambitions.

Pre-award finance teams provide expert financial guidance that is crucial for developing an accurate budget. Their specialized knowledge of funding body requirements, cost regulations, and financial compliance helps researchers navigate the complexities of grant applications. By ensuring that budgets meet all necessary specifications and include eligible costs, they allow researchers to focus on the core aspects of their projects without worrying about the fine print.

These finance teams also play a vital role in identifying hidden costs that researchers might overlook. With their experience, they can spot expenses such as indirect costs, inflation adjustments, or the true cost of equipment maintenance, which may not be immediately apparent. Their ability to uncover these potential financial pitfalls ensures that all aspects of the research are adequately funded from the start and helps prevent budget shortfalls that could derail a project.

In addition to providing guidance, pre-award teams equip researchers with practical tools like budgeting templates, software, and other resources to streamline the costing process. These resources simplify tasks such as estimating costs, calculating overheads, and structuring budgets in a format that meets the specific requirements of different funding bodies. This support makes it easier for researchers to create a well-organized and compliant budget without spending excessive time on administrative details.

Pre-award finance teams also assist with scenario planning and risk management by helping researchers build contingencies into their budgets. This proactive approach anticipates unexpected changes or risks, such as fluctuations in material costs or adjustments to staffing needs. By planning for these potential variables, finance teams help researchers create a more resilient financial plan that can adapt to evolving project demands.

Before submitting a grant application, finance teams typically review the budget for accuracy and completeness. This review ensures that the budget aligns with the project’s scope and that all justifications for expenses are clear and well-supported. The feedback provided to the researcher during this review process can be invaluable in fine-tuning the budget and ensuring that their projects are not only financially viable but also well-prepared for implementation, increasing the likeliness of funding success.

The inclusion of all project costs in the initial budget ensures financial stability and allows researchers to focus on their work without needing to seek additional funding. This efficient use of resources enables strategic allocation and ensures that funds are spent in a way that maximizes the impact of each dollar. Since funding bodies are more likely to approve applications that demonstrate financial feasibility, accurate costing increases the chances of securing funds.

“Despite its beneﬁts, accurate budgeting can be a time-intensive process that requires signiﬁcant efort.”

Institutions with a track record of submitting well-costed research proposals gain a reputation for reliability and that can lead to more opportunities for future grants. Additionally, accurate budgeting supports long-term planning by helping institutions set sustainable research strategies and anticipate future financial needs. This forward-looking approach allows for better allocation of resources across different research projects.

What You Need to Know to Get the Initial Budget Right

Despite its benefits, accurate budgeting can be a time-intensive process that requires significant effort. Since unforeseen economic changes or technological advancements can affect the budget, predicting costs accurately for projects spanning several years can be challenging. Researchers need to consult with finance experts, obtain quotes, and account for variables that may change over time, such as inflation or currency fluctuations.

Striking a balance between justifiable expenses and cost-effectiveness is crucial. Proposing a higher budget to account for all possible expenses may deter some funding bodies, especially those prioritising lower-cost projects. Conversely, being overly cautious in estimating costs can result in inflated budgets, potentially leading to an inefficient use of resources. Avoiding over-allocation is important.

To get the initial costing right, it is essential to involve finance experts from the beginning of the process. Their insights can help identify all potential expenses and ensure that nothing is overlooked. Including a contingency line in the budget is also wise, but it is important to justify why this buffer is necessary to avoid scepticism from funders. For multi-year projects, researchers should revisit budget estimates regularly to adjust for any changes, ensuring that the budget remains realistic and comprehensive.

By following these steps, researchers can set the foundation for a well-funded and sustainable research project. Nail it the first time, and you’re in a stronger position for future grant success. N

Charles Shannon is Head of Research and Innovation Operations at Loughborough University, UK. With extensive experience in research funding, compliance, and strategy, he supports institutional research sustainability, governance, and international collaboration across academia and funding bodies. He can be reached at C.Shannon@lboro.ac.uk.

(MIS)-UNDERSTANDING DEI: A CASE FOR CONTINUED SOCIAL JUSTICE IN RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION

By Sybile Bayiha and Luke Lynch

Believing that history does not repeat itself is to ignore the many lessons that can be learned from past events. We are experiencing significant shifts in many facets of research administration. Recent federal legislation and discussions seeking to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts are affecting programs across the federal government, into the private sector, and our public schools and universities. The dismantling of DEI efforts and programs is having profound effects within our organizations and institutions, creating instability and leaving many people confused and lost. Yet to have a good understanding of the current legal landscape and its impacts on the research administration profession, we must first look back at U.S. history to understand how social justice movements challenged the status quo and facilitated diversity and inclusion within our society and institutions. Reflecting on history provides us with insight into how we might move forward in a hopeful and positive manner.

The origins of DEI

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines DEI as “a set of values and related policies and practices focused on establishing a group culture of equitable and inclusive treatment and on attracting and retaining a diverse group of participants, including people who have historically been excluded or discriminated against” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). At the heart of DEI is social justice, which seeks equity, fairness, inclusion, and self-determination for groups who are or have been oppressed, exploited, or marginalized within

“Reflecting on history provides us with insight into how we might move forward in a hopeful and positive manner.”

our society for years (Duignan, 2025). Social justice movements can be found throughout U.S. history. Early examples include the abolitionist and women’s rights movements which ended slavery and extended suffrage to women, respectively.

In the mid-twentieth century, the civil rights movement gained certain key victories in social justice, such as ending segregation in public places based on race, religion, or national origin, banning employment discrimination on these same elements as well as sex, and forbidding federal funds to be used for discriminatory programs. Many DEI supporters tie contemporary efforts to the goals of the civil rights movement, such as integration and anti-discrimination. However, the termination of various DEI programs designed to benefit social groups that are underserved, underrepresented, or marginalized today is a pendulum swing that challenges many of the very protections that the civil rights movement sought to support.

(Mis)-Understanding the benefits of DEI

As a social justice victory, the civil rights movement curtailed discriminatory hiring practices through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and forbade the use of federal funds for any discriminatory program, but federal legislation in early 2025 deems DEI programs themselves discriminatory. In particular, a recent January 20th, 2025, Executive Order terminates DEI offices, positions, and training in federal agencies as well as federal funding for contractors and grantees that provide DEI training. The 2025 Executive Order on DEI states that “Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect” and asserts DEI programs themselves are “shameful discrimination” and wasteful. In response to this order, many federal agencies and scores of companies and institutions with federal contracts shut down their diversity offices and positions.

The 2025 Executive Order also brings forth the idea of the “DEI hire.” The use of this term in the legislation echoes some of the current controversy where contemporary hiring practices that seek diverse candidates are often believed to only benefit or give preference to certain groups, such as non-white ones and women. Additionally, at the core of the recent anti-DEI legislative measures seems to be a misunderstanding of the goals of DEI

programs, and attitudes that they are at odds with meritocracy, democracy, capitalism, or other ideals.

Hiring based on race and gender or creating de facto hiring quotas in the interest of diversity is illegal. However, supported actions in recruiting processes include casting wider nets for applicant pools to reach or attract more diverse audiences. Promoting a more diverse workforce has made companies more productive, innovative, and competitive while increasing workforce engagement, inclusion, and diversity (Allen, 2025)–all of which would seem to support meritocratic, democratic, and capitalistic models. Is this innovation, inclusion, and profitability something we really want to shut down, or do these elements necessarily make our society less democratic or merit-based?

(Mis)-Understanding each other

Many people are finding that DEI practices afford access to opportunities for a diverse population regardless of race. Today, the DEI movement has progressed to address all types of discrimination (including, but not limited to, race, gender, linguistic, cultural, socioeconomic, and disability) and encourages inclusivity and equity for all. As mentioned, DEI efforts do not support preferential treatment for certain people, but they do encourage equity. However, because DEI programs are often perceived to promote advantages for certain groups above others and challenge the status quo that dominant groups enjoy, these initiatives are being dismantled, despite their many benefits to our institutions.

So, what does history teach us in times like this? Discrimination of any kind does not serve society well, as Martin Luther King, Jr., once stated, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” DEI efforts have benefited numerous institutions because of their focus on perspectives that diverse environments offer, which often create unique solutions. The research enterprise has also benefited greatly from diversity through its use of diverse subjects, which ultimately has improved research results in many fields, including technology, engineering, and medicine, to name a few.

The signaling that DEI is somehow at odds with democracy, that it only benefits some groups over others, and that it may inherently lead to a less efficient, productive, or innovative workforce, seems to have no merit. Do we really want to lose the status as a world leader in science and technology and impede research that could benefit us all? Shall we sacrifice social justice and erode the progress that we have made thus far?

The way forward is engagement and social justice

With new administration come changes. History teaches us that in times of turbulence and chaos, we must rely on our ability to adapt and forge a new way forward. Many wins in social justice have been met with as many losses, and for those of us who champion DEI, it appears the pendulum has swung in the wrong direction. We are experiencing a significant paradigm shift in research administration. Now may be a good time to engage with each other to understand our perspectives and biases so we may address them in a meaningful manner. George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” As we witness the step-by-step dismantling of the aims of the civil rights movement, can we afford to continue in this trajectory?

The research administration profession benefits from the knowledge and skills that a diverse community brings to the research endeavor. Research administration cannot afford to remain powerless against the discrimination

“Only in an inclusive culture can we reach our true potential.”

of certain members of its profession; we must work together to achieve the promises of equity and inclusion for all. Only in an inclusive culture can we reach our true potential. As research administrators, we understand the strength that lies in inclusion and embrace our diversity to prosper. Therefore, we must remain steadfast in upholding these values and continue partnering with those who advance them while thoughtfully and constructively addressing any actions that may hinder our shared progress.

We must embrace new opportunities and continue in our innovative path for lasting change. We must always remember that our mental health is paramount, yet our community support shall remain unwavering to drive innovation forward. We must never adopt a defeated mindset that can only lead to the destabilization of our profession by enabling discrimination; rather, we must press forward with renewed energy, a common sense of purpose, and new goals that will create newer paths for victory to position ourselves and our profession for a vibrant future. N

References

Allen, T. (2025, January 30). DEI: Advancing merit-based hiring that makes companies more profitable and competitive. Forbes. www.forbes.com/sites/terinaallen/2025/01/30/deiadvancing-merit-based-hiring-that-makes-companies-more-profitable-and-competitive Duignan, B. (2025, February 5). Social justice. Encyclopedia Britannica. www.britannica.com/topic/social-justice Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). DEI. Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/DEI

Sybile Bayiha, MS, is a Senior Manager of Compliance & Data Analysis at the University of Maryland College Park. In her role she oversees and manages the university external and internal audits functions, provides guidance to the campus on compliance and cost related matters and delivers relevant training to the campus community. She serves as the Chair of NCURA’s Select Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (SCDEI). She can be reached at sbayiha@umd.edu.

Luke Lynch, MA, MEd, is Assistant Training Coordinator in Sponsored Projects Administration at the University of Minnesota. In his role at UMN, he develops and teaches courses on various topics in research administration and helps manage a curriculum certification program. He is an active member in NCURA, currently sits on the Select Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (SCDEI), and has presented at several of NCURA’s regional meetings. Luke can be reached at lync0172@umn.edu.

National Council of University Research Administrators

The Impact of Your

•

•Collaborate: NCURA’s Professional Networking Platform, including discussion boards and libraries sorted by topical area

•Automatic membership in your geographic region

•NCURA’s Resource Center: your source for the best of NCURA’s Magazine, Journal, YouTube Tuesday and Podcast resources, segmented into 8 topical areas

•NCURA Magazine: new issues published six times per year, and all past issues available online

•Sample Policies & Procedures

•NCURA Magazine’s e-Xtra and YouTube Tuesday delivered to your inbox each week

•

Membership

•Special member pricing on all education and products

•Podcasts and session recordings from our national conferences

•Access to and free postings to NCURA’s Career Center

•Leadership and Volunteer Opportunities

•

Preparing for Change When the Road is Unknown

By Sarah Yeats Patrick and Danny Sierra

Change is inevitable and can be scary when you don’t know where the path you’re on will take you. Until recently, there were few degree programs for research administration and a lack of understanding of what career progression in the profession could look like. Many in our ranks transitioned to the profession after serving as administrative assistants or former researchers. Without a clear structure, research administrators often must navigate the research space without knowing the exact destination. How does one prepare for career change or map out a five-year plan when there are so many possibilities and uncertainties?

The authors, both launched careers, made mistakes, and ultimately landed on their feet as departmental research administrators (DRAs). Sarah is a former Institutional Official (IO) who, in 2022, made the shift to Stanford’s Office of Pediatric Research Development (OPRD). Danny worked for the College of Science at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) offering pre-award services before joining the same office. While their journeys were different, the lessons learned may be helpful to other research professionals preparing for change and uncertainty in their own careers.

Lesson #1: Explore often and don’t overspecialize

The breadth of this profession can feel staggering. There are so many sponsors, fields of research, and phases in the grantmaking process. While it’s simply not possible to be an expert in everything, be cautious that you are not overly specializing in a single area. As a long-time department research administrator, Danny feels fortunate that his work in science allowed him to assist with research across disciplines from cognitive neuroscience to geology. This gave him experience with hundreds of different sponsors and the versatility needed to transition to a School of Medicine later in his career. Likewise, the shift from working in university central offices to the department level was a culture shock for Sarah. She had spent most of her professional career acting as an IO but sought a new role that would allow her more autonomy and the ability to work on proposals directly with Principal Investigators (PIs). That role was at Stanford within OPRD. Although Sarah was uncertain at the time that working at the department level was the right decision, she soon found herself feeling at home thanks to the valuable knowledge and skills she gained working in central offices,

which had provided her with much more rigorous training than most of her peers. The edge she gained as an IO allowed her to immediately excel with her PIs, and she also leveraged her knowledge to provide targeted training and mentorship to administrators in her department. Though staying in a central office was not her ultimate path, it gave Sarah the ideal skill set and knowledge to perform at the department level.

As a manager, it’s understandable to want to put employees into boxes. If you’re fortunate to have a large enough team, why not have one RA focus on National Science Foundation (NSF) and another focus on National Institutes of Health (NIH)? While that may work beautifully for short-term operational goals, it is the most well-rounded RAs that will be able to adapt to different roles and attract promotional opportunities. You can advocate for yourself and your future by making sure you attain a diverse set of skills.

Lesson #2: Prepare for your future, even when you’re satisfied with your present Career changes can occur when you least expect it, and it’s important to be prepared when the right opportunity presents itself. To illustrate this point, Danny was hit with immediate regret when he saw that the job he desired at Stanford listed Certified Research Administrator (CRA) certification as a preferred qualification. While he had seven years of strong experience coordinating university research proposals, he simply had not made time to prioritize studying for the CRA exam. While it was true that his supervisor had never encouraged him to seriously consider the exam and his faculty respected him plenty without additional certifications, he knew that a lack of foresight was to blame. He had focused too much on excelling in his present role and was not thinking about his future in the field, something of which he has often been guilty. While his experience and strong references were enough to land the job (luckily), it was a hard lesson regardless. The truth is that investing in your future is a continual and active process. It requires you to prioritize your own development, even when your desk is overflowing with projects and requests from your faculty.

Lesson #3: Find community and meaning in your work

Prior to becoming a research administrator, Sarah spent over a decade working for a small consulting firm whose clients ranged from nonprofits to state government. A large portion of her portfolio consisted of assisting the state with grants administration, specifically Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding used to provide shelter for unhoused individuals in her state. The work was fulfilling because she could see positive change in her own community with fewer people unsheltered and more connected to the services they need.

This experience guided Sarah to ultimately make the transition from central office to the department level, because being closer to the research allowed Sarah to feel more connected to her work. She could see the positive result of her expertise on a daily basis, whether she was assisting a PI or helping mentor and guide her fellow administrators. At the department level, the sense of fulfillment she didn’t know she was seeking had returned. Sarah's journey through the landscape of research administration highlights the importance of professional connection and gratification. Those feelings empowered her to make a greater difference and helped foster a collaborative environment that enriched both her work and the research community around her. Ultimately, this shift not only brought her career full circle, but it also reignited her passion for making a meaningful difference, demonstrating how the right organizational fit can transform your role.

That said, sometimes you don’t know what you need until you’ve found it. That was the case for Danny when he moved from a College of Science to a Department of Pediatrics. While exciting research was happening in both units, joining OPRD allowed him to be part of a larger team of research professionals. It wasn’t until he was surrounded by colleagues and collabo-

rating on projects such as this very article that he realized he had felt isolated in his former role. His faculty adored him, but interactions were understandably transactional, focused on the current proposal, and then moving on to the next. There wasn’t a Community of Practice or many mentorship opportunities available on such a small and specialized team. He was happy to be of service but simultaneously felt isolated while focusing solely on what he could produce for others under time constraints. He didn’t know it then, but this sort of dynamic wasn’t sustainable and sapped his energy and professional satisfaction.

Conclusion

At its core, preparing for your professional future is about reflecting on your values and what gives you energy and satisfaction at work. The clearest road map we have in life is our emotions (Ulibarri et al., 2019). Take note of how you feel doing certain tasks and notice what excites or drains you. What do you find interesting, even if it’s a little scary? How can your current skills and future aspirations align with potential opportunities in front of you? Most of all, as you prepare to excel as an RA in your department and beyond, remember and celebrate that your career is actually your own. Take risks, invest in yourself, and follow your values to prepare you for whatever the future may hold. N

"Without a clear structure, research administrators often must navigate the research space without knowing the exact destination."

Reference Ulibarri, N., Cravens, A.E., Nabergoj, A.S., Kernbach, S., & Royalty, A. (2019). Creativity in Research. Cambridge University Press.

Sarah Yeats Patrick, MA, CRA, is the Assistant Director of Pre-Award Research Administration in the Office of Pediatric Research Development at Stanford University. She has more than 18 years of professional experience, including 14 years in grant and research administration. She holds an MA in Anthropology and is a RACC Certified Research Administrator. She can be reached at sarahyp@stanford.edu.

Danny Sierra, M.Ed, is a Pre-Award Research Administrator in the Office of Pediatric Research Development at Stanford University. He previously provided pre-award services at the University of Nevada, Reno. He can be reached at dmsierra@stanford.edu.

Research Administration in Africa PRIMING FOR CHANGE: The Context for African Universities

By Christine Hellen Amito

Research administrators support the research enterprise by managing the administrative and financial aspects of research projects, including grant applications, budget management, and compliance with regulations. In Africa, we ask the question: How do research administrators embody the spirit of adaptability, innovation, and readiness essential for success in a dynamic research environment? This calls for emphasis on the important role of looking ahead, anticipating challenges and embracing opportunities to evolve and grow. Thus, the need for being “Forward Focused: Priming for Change" that inspires research administrators to adopt a forward-thinking approach that drives transformation, fosters collaboration, and positions research administration for a vibrant future. In the context of African universities, it is about preparing institutions for the future of research and higher education. It encourages administrators, policymakers, and faculty to adopt innovative approaches that not only tackle current challenges but also proactively create pathways for long-term growth and relevance in a rapidly changing global environment. The key areas of focus include the following:

1) Driving transformation in research. African universities often face challenges with infrastructure, but embracing technology can help bridge gaps. Research administrators can lead initiatives that integrate digital tools, e-learning platforms, and collaborative online tools to enhance both research and teaching. For example, universities could adopt open-access platforms to share research findings globally, increasing the visibility and impact of African research.

2) Fostering Collaborations through regional, global, and industry partnerships. African universities can significantly benefit from intra-continental collaboration. Priming for change involves creating stronger networks between universities across the continent, encouraging cross-border research collaborations, and facilitating joint programs. Platforms such as the African Union’s African Research Universities Alliance (ARUA) could play a pivotal role in this.

While African universities may face resource constraints, they can still foster global collaborations with international institutions to gain access to funding, knowledge exchange, and research expertise. Collaborating

with universities in the Global South can also increase the recognition of African institutions in global research networks.

By embracing change, African universities can become more resilient, competitive, and impactful in the global academic and research landscape.

In Africa, a significant part of research remains disconnected from industry needs. A forward-thinking approach can involve creating more partnerships with industries, especially in agriculture, healthcare, and renewable energy, to ensure that research directly benefits local economies and societal challenges.

3) Positioning for a Vibrant Future: Many African universities have an untapped potential for innovation. Administrators can encourage the creation of incubators, innovation hubs, and startup ecosystems within campuses to support students and researchers in turning their ideas into real-world solutions. For example, Makerere University in Uganda, has created Makerere University's “Innovation Pod” (MakUnipod) that aims to foster creativity, innovation, and collaboration among students, researchers, and entrepreneurs, providing a space for developing solutions and supporting startups with state-of-the-art facilities.

The emphasis on Sustainable Development can be through aligning research priorities with Africa’s sustainable development goals (SDGs) can give African universities a unique position in global research. Encouraging research on climate change, energy, agriculture, and poverty alleviation is critical to positioning these universities as leaders in solving Africa’s most pressing challenges.

4) Building Resilience to Global Shifts: There is a need to focus on capacity building in African research institutions. Training research administrators,

WORK SMART

eAward: Streamlining Research

Have you ever submitted an award setup request and wondered about its status? Before the University of Utah (U0fU) implemented eAward (a homegrown tool developed under the leadership of Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) in collaboration with the Utah Information Technology office) to manage post-award transactions, workflows were cumbersome and lacked transparency. The university relied on outdated and siloed workflow methods like emails, phone calls, and paper forms, which made it difficult for faculty and administrators to track requests or see if they had stalled. OSP staff were burdened with manual compliance checks and disjointed subaward management. Staff turnover caused process gaps and loss of procedural knowledge.

Then came eAward; this transformative system has centralized and digitized award management at UofU, enhancing transparency and efficiency. eAward simplifies processes like preliminary project setups, new award setups, modifications, subaward management, no-cost extensions, and organizational ID changes.

Through built-in messaging and notifications, eAward provides users with a clear view of transactions and enables easy tracking for departments, PIs, and OSP staff. eAward integrates financial, purchasing, and compliance systems, reducing risk by ensuring adherence to IRB, IACUC, and COI regulations. Electronic subrecipient commitment forms have improved compliance and processing times, while electronic approvals and PeopleSoft integration enhance workflow integrity and data accuracy.

UofU evaluated several other software options, but the internallydeveloped automation of eAward streamlines manual tasks while aligning with research administration practices, all without sacrificing functionality. For those who remember the old inefficiencies, eAward has been a game-changer.

Research administration will always have its complexities, which is why universities should strive to make internal processes as transparent, structured, and efficient as possible. More than ever, research administration needs to be responsive to researchers' needs and demonstrate value by bridging compliance, transparency, and customer-centricity. Automation, like that provided by eAward supports trust-building and enhances the research community’s experience. N

Isabella Johnsen is Associate Director of Systems in the Office of Sponsored Projects (OSP) at the University of Utah and served as the lead for the eAward system project team. Other key members of the team were Brent K. Brown, Director of OSP; Kevon Balls, Program Manager of University Information Technologies; and Paul Richardson, Principal Developer from University Information Technologies. Isabella can be reached at Isabella.johnsen@osp.utah.edu

faculty, and students in modern research methodologies, grant writing, data management, and the use of emerging technologies will help African universities remain globally competitive.

Enhancing Funding Opportunities can build resilience. Securing sustainable funding is one of the major challenges for African universities A forward-focused strategy includes diversifying funding sources through partnerships with international donors, engaging the private sector, and developing innovative funding models like research crowdfunding or alumni donations.

5) Data-Driven Decision-Making. The increasing need for data-guided decision has made African universities support the use of research impact metrics. African universities should adopt frameworks for measuring the impact of research, not just by publications but by societal outcomes, policy influence, and economic contributions. Having datadriven insights into research performance will help administrators make more informed decisions, attract funding, and set clearer research priorities. ARUA commissioned its project to conduct data-gathering and benchmarking initiatives to assess the performance of its member universities. The data includes indicators of university performance, such as research output, student outcomes, and resource allocation.

6) Leadership and Vision for the Future. Leaders within African universities need to advocate for policies that support research, academic freedom, and innovation. They can also push for investments in infrastructure that will enable universities to adopt digital solutions, improve research facilities, and facilitate easier access to global research networks.

Leadership at African universities must embrace a forward-thinking, entrepreneurial mindset. This includes fostering a culture of continuous improvement, encouraging faculty to engage in cutting-edge research, and creating an environment where both students and staff can thrive.

In summary, the benefits of priming for change include:

a) Competitiveness: African universities can increase their standing on the world stage by driving research excellence, attracting international collaborations, and contributing to global challenges such as climate change and health crises.

b) Economic and Societal Impact: By aligning research with local needs and global trends, universities can play a significant role in driving economic development and social change within Africa.

c) Sustainable Research Ecosystem: Creating a vibrant and sustainable research ecosystem that is supported by diverse funding, effective governance, and innovative partnerships will ensure African universities continue to grow and succeed well into the future.

In conclusion, being forward focused is about setting the groundwork for transformation by adopting a forward-looking, collaborative, and sustainable approach to research and higher education. By embracing change, African universities can become more resilient, competitive, and impactful in the global academic and research landscape. N

References

Hastings, B. J., & Schwarz, G. M. (2021). Mindsets for Change Leaders: Exploring Priming Approaches for Leadership Development. Journal of Change Management, 22(2), 202–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.2018721

ARUA (2022): Strategic Plan 2022 – 2027. The Secretary-General, Ghana.

Christine Hellen Amito is an Economist/Senior Planning Officer at Makerere University. She has more than 20 years’ experience in strategic planning and development work. She holds a BSc., and PhD degrees in Economics from Makerere University, Kampala and an MSc.in Development & Economics from Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway. She can be reached at christine.amito@mak.ac.ug.

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

Navigating Change:

Grant Terminations, IDC Caps, and Legal

Uncertainty in a New Federal Landscape

Based on the May 15th NCURA Navigating Change Conversation Series with Kathleen Larmett, Ted Waters, Mindy Pava, and Dennis Paffrath-Nelson

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It reflects the general insights of attorneys Ted Waters, and Mindy Pava from Feldesman Leifer LLP on current issues affecting research institutions. If you are facing a specific legal issue, you are strongly encouraged to seek individual counsel. The content and associated slides are attorney work product and intended for internal use only. They should not be reposted externally or used in a manner suggesting authorship by others.

As the federal research funding environment continues to shift, research administrators across the country are navigating a volatile new normal—facing grant terminations, shifting indirect cost rate guidance, and evolving expectations around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) compliance.

On May 15, NCURA hosted a dynamic conversation on these challenges featuring Ted Waters (EWaters@ feldesman.com) and Mindy Pava (mpava@feldesman.com) of Feldesman Leifer, with moderation by Dennis Paffrath-Nelson of Temple University and an introduction by NCURA Executive Director Kathleen Larmett.

Grant Terminations: The Legal and Practical Response

Waters and Pava began by discussing the widespread wave of grant terminations that began in early 2025. Letters from agencies including NIH, NSF, the Department of Education, and the EPA arrived in bulk, prompting urgent questions from institutions. Are more terminations coming? What does a “final agency action” mean? And should institutions appeal even if success seems unlikely?

According to Pava, institutions are weighing legal recourse not only to reverse terminations but also to show support for their PIs. “There’s value in making the effort,” she said, “even if your appeal is denied.” Waters added that while the terminations are legally dubious—often relying on the vague rationale that projects “no longer effectuate agency priorities”— the path to challenge them is murky, as grant law lacks the clarity seen in the federal contracting space.

Indirect Cost Rate Caps: Strategic Dilemmas for Institutions

One of the most pressing topics was the capping of indirect cost rates (IDC) at 15% by agencies such as NIH, NSF, and the Department of Energy. Waters explained the difficult choice institutions now face: comply with the cap and risk unreimbursed costs, or submit their negotiated rate and possibly lose the award. “There’s no perfect answer,” he noted. “If you draw down funds under the capped rate, you’re likely waiving your rights.” The panel emphasized that while institutions can try to preserve rights by noting objections in the budget justification or correspondence, such strategies have limited legal weight. Waters advised that submitting the full IDC rate is currently the most viable way to preserve future legal claims.

Jurisdictional Chaos: Where Can Institutions Turn for Relief?

The conversation then turned to the legal limbo surrounding grant litigation. Historically, disputes over federal grants could be brought in federal district court. But recent Supreme Court trends have suggested that such cases may belong in the Court of Federal Claims—a venue that deals with financial restitution, not injunctive relief. “We want our grants reinstated,” Waters said. “That’s very different from suing for damages.” Pava highlighted that district courts have taken varying approaches—some still accepting jurisdiction, others deferring to the Supreme Court’s emergent view. “It’s a jurisdictional mess,” she admitted, “and unfortunately, there’s little clarity right now.”

DEI Certifications and the Language of Risk

One of the more delicate discussions focused on how DEI-related language in proposals and personnel bios may trigger grant scrutiny. Waters emphasized the constitutional questions at play: “Do you change your language because the government said so? That’s a First Amendment issue.” Pava encouraged institutions to be strategic, noting that if a project is inclusive or available to all, that should be clearly stated in narratives. “You want to be proactive about how your scope is described, even if keywords appear.”

Foreign Subawards and the NIH’s May Surprise

The panel concluded with a discussion on NIH’s sudden policy change regarding foreign subawards, issued in May 2025. Under the new guidance, NIH will no longer approve new or continued foreign subawards until a new award mechanism is announced—possibly in September 2025.

Pava clarified that the prohibition appears to apply prospectively, and existing awards with foreign subrecipients may proceed under current terms, at least for now. However, the ambiguity has left institutions scrambling. “This is yet another example,” Waters added, “of an abrupt change with unclear implementation.”

Final Thoughts: Finding Stability in Unstable Times

As the session wrapped up, both Waters and Pava emphasized the importance of institutional leadership, community collaboration, and legislative advocacy. “Congress is the one body that can bring clarity,” said Waters. “We need to start looking toward legislative solutions.” Pava added that even amid chaos, there are meaningful ways institutions can support their research communities. “Sometimes just filing an appeal—regardless of the outcome—can boost morale and show your researchers that you’re standing with them.” !

August 10–13, 2025 Washington, DC Join Us

Ted Waters and Mindy Pava will continue this critical conversation at NCURA’s 67th Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, this August during their session

Trumping Federal Grants:

How Research Institutions Can Combat the New Administration’s Funding Shift

August 11, 2025

4:00 - 5:00 pm

Attendees can expect deeper dives into the evolving legal landscape, as well as practical advice for institutions navigating this period of unprecedented change. For more information and updates, visit www.ncura.edu/annualmeeting.

They can also be reached at mpava@feldesman.com and ewaters@feldesman.com. You can also experience the full one-hour conversation here.

Could A Hub and Spoke Model Improve Research Administration?

By Nicole Bohnker

Given the current, uncertain nature of the political climate, things once thought of as stable are now being tossed away with the stroke of a pen. Call me Pollyanna, but it may be time to take this forced exercise as a way to re-think how research administration is structured. When you consider the status quo, what works well? What doesn’t? Could we be doing things more efficiently?

If we take a hard look at the findings of the research we support, we may be able to apply it to how we administer research. Increasing efficiency and effectiveness in healthcare systems has been well researched. One particular design, the hub and spoke model, seems to be a shining example of a strategy that produces scalable and reproducible results – so much so that most of the country’s hospitals (72% in 2018) are a part of a larger health system and often in the form of a hub and spoke (Brooks et al., 2024). Clinical hub and spoke models have been shown to increase efficiency, quality, and consistency of services and give the ability to expand services in a systematic way (Brooks et al., 2024; Elrod & Fortenberry, 2017; Porter & Lee, 2013; Subramaniam et al., 2022). The basic design is a network where a highly resourced, very specialized ‘hub’ site anchors a less-resourced, more limited but complementary ‘spoke’ site (Elrod & Fortenberry, 2017; Subramaniam et al., 2022). Especially as a field already stretched too thin might just become thinner, it begs the question: What would it look like to borrow this model for research administration?

In a model like this, the Hub (a large university, for example) could

focus on submitting and managing research studies that require expert-level knowledge, such as applications tied to federal dollars. Their priority could rightfully be those awards that need to be looked at with utmost scrutiny. The Spoke (a college or school connected to the large university) would then have the autonomy to independently – through flow down of and education about policies and procedures from the Hub – submit and manage less specialized (on the research administration side), awards directly. In more complex clinical hub and spoke models, the spoke can also serve as a hub, creating a network of its own. In research administration, illustrated in Figure 1, this could equivalate to the college ‘spoke’ becoming the ‘hub’ for the different departments that make up the college.

This is not something that is unheard of in academic circles. Even the NIH has adapted this model for use in various clinical trial networks. An early example of this is the HIV Vaccine Trials Network that formed in 2000 (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 2018). Over the years, that network has grown to be called the HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Network and is comprised of four spokes and an operational hub (HIV/AIDS Network Coordination [HANC], 2024). The National Cancer Institute, circa 2011, took a similar approach and consolidated its Cooperative Group Program into the National Clinical Trials Network. This network now supports countless clinical trials in over 2,200 sites not only across the United States but in Canada and globally as well (Schneider, 2021). The goals of both these networks, and others like it that are supported by the NIH, are to enhance the operational

Figure 1.

framework of research to improve efficiency, coordination, and resourcesharing (Schneider, 2021; HANC, 2024).

The hub and spoke model could help maximize the use of resources in pre-award, post-award, contracting and compliance at both the hub and the spoke. Some say the current system is bloated with administrators and institutional red tape, which may well be true, but bare bones are certainly not the answer either. Without proper checks and balances in place, there is a large potential for increases in audit findings, research policy noncompliance and research misconduct, opening up organizations to legal battles and leaving them un-fundable. Much of this would not be purposeful, in my opinion, but a consequence of extreme decentralization, which is a real possibility with a bare-bones budget. With no connection to someone knowledgeable about best practices or the ability to know the key players in individual units to ensure communication of and unvarying adherence to ever-changing policies, it is a story that writes itself (University of California Los Angeles [UCLA], 2021). As is typical, the answer, I’m sure, lies somewhere in the middle. A few local jacks-of-all-trades with direct access to a knowledgeable, specialized workforce to guide, fill in the gaps, and add depth when needed.

A well-run hub and spoke system will be highly communicative on both sides. However, the initial responsibility for overall program design lies with the hub (UCLA, 2021). The impetus is on the hub also, prior to implementation at a spoke, to take the time to understand the needs and local context at the spoke site (Subramaniam et al., 2022). Once a baseline is established, the hub and spoke can together determine where the hub’s resources can remediate any deficiencies at the spoke. This would optimize resource utilization and ensure consistent application of hub policies and procedures at spoke sites.

So, I say, let’s make some lemonade. There is no better time and no better

way to prime for change than by doing what we do best: research. Studying this model as a way to increase the efficiency of large university systems and empower the colleges and schools within them could be a bright spot in these tumultuous times. N

References

Brooks, E. S., Finn, C. B., Wirtalla, C. J., & Kelz, R. R. (2024). Inefficiencies of care in hub and spoke healthcare systems: A multi-state cohort study. The American Journal of Surgery, 229, 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.12.023

Elrod, J. K., & Fortenberry, J. L. (2017). The hub-and-spoke organization design: An avenue for serving patients well. BMC Health Services Research, 17(S1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913017-2341-x

HIV/AIDS Network Coordination. (2024). Organization & Mission. HIV/AIDS Network Coordination (HANC). www.hanc.info/about/organization-mission.html

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. (2018). History of HIV vaccine research. www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/hiv-vaccine-research-history

Porter, M. E., & Lee, T. H. (2013). The strategy that will fix health care. Harvard Business Review, 91(10), 50–70.

Schneider, M. E. (2021). The evolution of the National Cancer Institute’s National Clinical Trials Network | Ash Clinical News | American Society of Hematology. ASH Clinical News. https://ashpublications.org/ashclinicalnews/news/1411/The-Evolution-of-the-National-CancerInstitute-s

Subramaniam, S., Chen, J., Wilkerson, T.-L., Stevenson, L., Kincaid, C., Firestone, C., & Ball, S. L. (2022). Refining the implementation of a hub-and-spoke model for telepain through qualitative inquiry. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 8(3), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-022-00288-w

UCLA Office of Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost. (n.d.). Hub and spoke Town Hall. Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost. https://evcp.ucla.edu/priorities/hub-and-spoke-town-hall

Nicole I. Bohnker, MPH, CRA, is the lead research administrator for the University of Illinois College of Medicine Peoria, Department of Pediatrics. Her purpose is to connect the dots, managing pre- and post-award activities and leading the department’s research coordinators. Nicole can be reached at nbohnker@uic.edu.

RESOURCE

The requirements for documenting compensation charges to federal awards are complicated - we have a 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 re-percussions 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

WHAT HAPPENED? What No Longer Makes Sense? What Next?

Anticipating and Embracing Change Through Flexible Financial Research Administration Policies, Processes, and Workflow

By Mary Louise Healy

“The only constant is change.” “When you are finished changing, you're finished.” “To improve is to change, so to be perfect is to have changed often." From Heraclitus to Benjamin Franklin to Winston Churchill, Ancient Greece to the 20th century (and beyond), we have worried about, dreaded, resisted, and maybe even embraced change.

As in life, everything in research administration is subject to change. Change can be due to shifts external or internal to the organization or a combination of the two. The funding landscape constantly shifts, sometimes imperceptibly and sometimes suddenly and unexpectedly. Compliance requirements change due to legislation or newly identified potential threats. Internal foci change with identifying emerging risk areas, often in response to internal and external audits. These changes impact financial research administration –policies, processes, and workflow. Given its inevitability, why manage and tolerate change "as it happens?" Anticipating and preparing for change –whether internal or imposed from outside – can bring about improvements that otherwise might not be possible. It can bring us all that much closer to perfection.

Although change is to be expected, the exact nature of future change, whether subtle or sudden, is unknown. How can one expect the unexpected? The key is to prepare to flex by focusing on the "bigger picture" and the ultimate purpose of the policy, process, or workflow related to the financial administration of sponsored awards.

Flexibility

“Flexible” is defined as "characterized by a ready capacity to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements," as in a policy or process (MerriamWebster, n.d.). Financial research administration involves many policies, processes, and workflows around what and how expenses can and cannot be charged, how financial reporting must be done, who can endorse a

report, and what training is required to ensure compliance, among many other issues. Policies, procedures, and workflows can be made flexible by allowing for easy adaptation to changes, regardless of the source of those changes, when they are written, approved, and put into effect.

Policies

Policies are flexible if they can be changed quickly upon regular review or in response to external changes. Quick changes to policies of institutions of higher education are not the norm and, in many cases, not possible. New policies and revisions to existing policies must generally go through several levels of approval, sometimes up to a system or board level, before they can be implemented. However, for policies, being flexible – adaptable to change – can also mean that they are written such that they would not frequently need to be changed. That they, as written, are adaptable to changing circumstances and situations.

There are always individual cases in which a provision in a policy is unnecessary or doesn't apply; as internal and external changes occur, this may become true for many cases. The organization is bound by and audited against the details of the policy. Suppose a policy states that subaward invoices must bear the digital signature of the Principal Investigator (PI). In that case, separate email approvals are unacceptable documentation of the PI's review and approval of the expenses charged. With changing work modalities and PIs sometimes unavailable to sign, even digitally, for extended periods, complying with this requirement becomes difficult. Had the policy been written to require "written evidence of approval, which may be in the form

of a physical or digital signature on the payment documents,” the email approval could be acceptable. The payment would be made, and the PI approval documentation would comply with the requirements. In “building flexibility" into financial research administration policies, as with any policies, words matter. Greatly. Words such as “always,” “must,” “all,” “never,” and the phrase “shall not” should be used sparingly. In the subaward invoice payment scenario, a policy stating that approval should “generally” be by physical or digital signature would also allow for email approval in cases where the PI is unavailable or otherwise unable to sign. Either/or requirements also allow flexibility in policies. It is challenging to comply with a policy stating that approvers must have first-hand knowledge of the reports or payments they approve. Requiring first-hand knowledge almost always equates to requiring the PIs themselves–and not delegates–to approve these reports or payments. A policy requiring that either the approver must have first-hand knowledge or that first-hand knowledge be transferred to that approver provides greater flexibility and less need to change the policy when circumstances change. First-hand knowledge could be transferred through emails from the individual with that knowledge or through access to documents detailing that knowledge, such as approved and signed reports and time records.

Processes and Workflow

Policies are implemented through processes and workflow. These can be changed much more easily than the policies themselves, as new processes and workflows and changes to existing ones generally don’t require multiple formal approvals. To allow for easy adaptation, though, policies and workflows should also focus on the "bigger picture" to the extent possible. Referencing positions rather than titles when describing approvers (instead of

“assistant director,” for instance, the approver might be “the individual empowered to make budgetary commitments”). Allowing for alternate approvers – and not specifying that they may approve in the absence of the primary approver, which requires documentation of absence – allows for easy adaptation when there are changes in organization and staffing.

A quote left out at the beginning of this article is, “The more things change, the more they are the same” (Karr, 1848). As policies are concerned, this might not be far off. If a policy is flexible enough to remain valid as written through multiple changes that might impact it, it is serving its purpose in anticipating change. However, having “built-in” flexibility in policies and associated processes and workflow doesn't mean that policies should not be revisited regularly and upon sudden internal or external changes impacting the policy subject. It does, though, make that periodic review easier and ensures that the organization is poised to carry out compliant financial research administration in the face of the unexpected. This is to be expected. N

References

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Flexible. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flexible Karr, J-B. A. (1848, July). Les Guêpes, vi.

Mary Louise Healy is the Assistant Dean of Research Administration at the Krieger School of Arts & Sciences at Johns Hopkins University. She is responsible for pre- and post-award oversight. She also serves NCURA as a traveling workshop faculty member and peer reviewer and sits on the Nominating & Leadership Development Committee. She can be reached at mhealy11@jhu.edu.

RESOURCE

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

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!

TRAINING TIPS

Priming Research Administrators for Change

Tricia Callahan, Luke Lynch, and Kathryn O'Hayre

The profession of research administration is dynamic, and the only constant in our work is change. Whether it's updated federal guidelines and regulations or emerging requirements, we must adapt, learn new skills, and welcome change. In this fluid environment, our profession necessitates a forward-thinking approach to training beyond imparting knowledge to equip administrators with the skills and mindset to anticipate and navigate these changes. As trainers, we must foster a culture of continuous learning, questioning, resilience, and an ability to adapt to change.

Embrace Emerging Technologies and Trends

To remain current, trainers must actively monitor emerging trends in funding, research compliance, and technology. Attending professional conferences, subscribing to agency announcements, and keeping abreast of innovative training methods are just a few ways we keep our learners ahead of the curve.

Trainers can leverage Artificial Intelligence-powered adaptive learning, interactive microlearning platforms, and virtual reality simulations to provide cutting-edge, personalized educational experiences.

Trainers must critically evaluate new technologies, ensuring they enhance instruction rather than being used for their own sake. Given discrepant technological access, trainers must offer alternatives. With AI's rapid emergence, trainers use it for efficient lesson planning, personalized learning, and immersive experiences. Ultimately, successful training integrates technology thoughtfully, prioritizing accessibility and pedagogical value above all else.

Cultivate Change Management Skills

Cultivating change management skills is crucial for navigating the constant influx of new regulations, funding priorities, and institutional goals. Equipping administrators with change management skills ensures smoother transitions, minimizes disruption, and fosters a more adaptable and resilient staff.

For example, many research institutions have adopted electronic grants management systems. During implementation, research administrators must adapt to the new business processes and technology skills the systems demand. Trainers must impart new information and processes to users and discuss how to manage and adapt to this change within their departments, units, or across the institution.

It can be accomplished through workshops, scenario-based training, ongoing communication, problem-solving, and resilience-building. By fostering a culture of adaptability, we can transform potential disruptions into catalysts for institutional growth and efficiency.

Focus on the WHY and HOW

Focusing on the "why" and "how" of research administration training fosters a deeper understanding and practical application of novel concepts. Connecting training content to sponsor and institution regulations (the "why") and providing real-world scenarios and simulations (the "how") empowers administrators to see the relevance of their work and effectively answer “it depends” questions.

When training on abstract or complex content, trainers can use real-world examples to demonstrate how these ideas apply to the research administrator’s daily work, especially when the connection isn't immediately obvious. For instance, as new federal directives are introduced to our institutions, it is essential to understand them and how they may impact our work going forward. This helps us learn to adapt to these changes in the fluid world of research administration.

Implementing these strategies—mindfully embedding innovative technology into our instruction, cultivating change management skills, and focusing on the “why” and “how”—can equip research administrators to thrive in our ever-changing profession. N

“By fostering a culture of adaptability, we can transform potential disruptions into catalysts for institutional growth and efficiency.”

Tricia Callahan, MA, CRA, and NCURA Distinguished Educator, is the Interim Director for Research Training in the Emory University Office of Research Administration. She has been a member of NCURA since 1999 and is currently an NCURA Peer Reviewer and Traveling Faculty member for the Fundamentals of Sponsored Project Administration. She can be reached at tricia.callahan@emory.edu.

Luke Lynch, MA, MEd, is an Assistant Training Coordinator in Sponsored Projects Administration at the University of Minnesota. In this role, he develops and teaches courses on various topics in research administration and helps manage a curriculum certification program. He is an active member of NCURA, currently sits on the Select Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (SCDEI), and has presented at several of NCURA's regional meetings. Luke can be reached at lync0172@umn.edu.

Kathryn O’Hayre, CRA, is a Training and Information Coordinator at Colorado State University. Since 2020, she has contributed to NCURA professional development learning opportunities by volunteering on various committees and presenting at conferences and webinars at the regional and national levels. She can be reached at kathryn.ohayre@colostate.edu.

What We Learned and How We Can Prepare for the Future Results from the 2023 COGR Facilities and Administrative Cost Survey:

By Cindy Hope

As COGR periodically does, in January 2023, it sent a survey to its members to collect data on Facilities and Administrative (F&A/Indirect) Cost reimbursement information such as institutional demographics, F&A cost reimbursement rates, rate negotiations, the impact of the 26% administrative cap and effective reimbursement rates (experienced reimbursement rates). Surveys were completed during early 2023 by 120 respondents. A lot has changed since 2023, some might say almost everything, but a lot can still be learned from the trends and other observations derived from the data.

COGR produced several reports and analyses that can be found on the COGR 2023 Survey of F&A Cost Rates webpage (COGR 2023 Survey of F&A Cost Rates | Council on Governmental Relations, 2023). Many of those require member login, but in December 2024, COGR released an F&A Survey Capstone (Capstone) report, available to all and providing “findings and observations on several of the most notable results of the COGR F&A survey along with relevant official federal government data.” This Capstone report is also available on the 2023 Survey webpage.

Observations and Findings

1. Universities are prohibited by regulation from requesting reimbursement for the full cost of conducting federally funded research and are paying an ever-increasing share of that cost.

2. Using the size of their federally funded research portfolios to compare research universities, those with less federal funding pay a disproportionate share of the cost of research, which may be a barrier to entry for emerging research institutions and limit the breadth and capacity of the U.S. research enterprise.

3. F&A cost reimbursement rates have increased minimally, and actual reimbursements, as a percentage of the direct cost of research, have not increased, resulting in an increase in institutional cost burden.

4. The federally mandated 26% cap on reimbursement of university administrative costs prevents universities from charging federal awards their proportionate share of the cost burden associated with the extensive growth in federal regulations since the cap was enacted in 1991.

How can this information be helpful as we move forward in changing times?

Do not lose sight of the truth.

It is easy for unreimbursed F&A costs to seem to disappear. They do not. They were paid for by the institution and when the institution is not reimbursed for them, it has less funding available to continue supporting research, instruction, and public service.

The appropriateness of each F&A cost reimbursement is assessed at the time the institution demonstrates its cost of supporting research in its F&A cost reimbursement rate proposal to the government. The final negotiated F&A cost rate agreement demonstrates that the reimbursement is appropriate when the rate is used to charge/allocate F&A costs to a project. An institution, therefore, does not and should not need to trace each dollar of F&A cost reimbursement through its system to a dollar spent on an F&A cost. Because of this internal control at the front end of the transaction, adding a requirement at the end to limit how the reimbursement is spent would be nonsensical It would be equivalent to asking you to show that you spent your last business travel expense reimbursement on future business travel. Further, it would require a significant budget and accounting system, process, and policy changes, adding significant new compliance costs and burden.

As noted in the Capstone report, “All research institutions provide significant cost sharing – sometimes in the form of direct contributions (e.g. unreimbursed researcher time) but also when an institution is not reimbursed for F&A costs at its full, negotiated rate.” The 2023 survey found that the institutions reporting less than $200 million in federal research funding in the 2021 NSF HERD survey had, on average, a larger gap between their negotiated and effective F&A cost reimbursement rates (ranging from 10.9% to 16.0%) than did those reporting $200 million or more (ranging from 8.9% to 13.3%) (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2021).

As noted throughout the Capstone report, rate caps and pressures on institutions to accept lower rates disproportionately disadvantage institutions with smaller research and development funding portfolios.

Accounting is the language of business, so do the math

Much of the criticism of F&A cost reimbursement has focused on the institutions with the highest rates. Yes, there are Universities with rates in the sixties, but those rates represent no more than the allowable, allocable, reasonable, and consistently treated costs of supporting research at those institutions. And they are not as high as many people think. This is mathematically demonstrated in the COGR graphic F&A Cost Rates are NOT a Percent of the Total Award, which dispels the myth that the negotiated F&A rate represents the portion of the total award directed to F&A cost.

Institutions with higher rates are also criticized because some institutions have much lower rates. But it also makes mathematical sense that an institution located in an expensive region of the country and/or comparatively engaging in more infrastructure-dependent research (e.g. biomedical) will find it more costly, on average, to support its research. Further, the 26% cap on the administrative component of the F&A cost rate means that for most institutions, the differences between their rates are completely due to differences in facilities costs. As demonstrated below, the 26% cap on the administrative component is not predominantly an issue for the institutions with the largest amounts of research funding.

Caps and flat rates are unfair because they do not consider the actual cost of supporting research and they also disproportionately hurt institutions with smaller research bases. This was found in the F&A Survey but can also

It is easy for unreimbursed F&A costs to seem to disappear. They do not. They were paid for by the institution and when the institution is not reimbursed for them, it has less funding available to continue supporting research, instruction, and public service.

be understood by considering economies of scale. The F&A cost reimbursement rate is the institution’s ratio of F&A costs to a subset of direct costs. If all other variables are the same, an institution with $500 million in direct costs is unlikely to need to spend ten times the amount needed by an institution with $50 million in direct costs. Our survey found “(t)he average for all institutions combined is approximately 35%, or 9 percentage points above the 26% cap” and that the impact of the existing 26 percentage-point cap on the administrative cost portion of the rates of universities was significantly more costly for institutions with less than $200 million in expenses reported on the NSF HERD survey than for those reporting $200 million or more.

Calculated administrative rates for institutions reporting less than $200 million ranged from 39.8% to 36.5% (a 13.8% to 10.5% gap) while administrative rates for institutions reporting $200 million or more ranged from 33.4% to 32.6% (a 7.4% to 6.6% gap).

Educate. Inform. Repeat.

Many communications about research funding, even those that are the most well-intentioned, contain misinformation about F&A cost reimbursement

rates. COGR’s F&A Cost Reimbursement Materials webpage has a variety of documents and tools to help you effectively share accurate information. In addition to the F&A cost rate graphic described above, COGR resources include the F&A Survey Capstone report and several earlier, but still useful, F&A cost resources. The 2019 paper, Excellence in Research: The Funding Model, F&A Reimbursement, and Why the System Works, is COGR’s most comprehensive F&A cost resource and you will find a slide deck is also provided (“Excellence in Research: The Funding Model, F&A Reimbursement, and Why the System Works | Council on Governmental Relations”).

You will also find several resources developed in cooperation with other associations supporting research institutions, including a five-minute video, “Understanding the Real Costs of Research” (updated February 2025), a Costs of Federal Research Infographic (Updated December 2024), Frequently Asked Questions, and a one-page (two-sided) handout, Facilities & Administrative (F&A) Costs of Research.

COGR continues to update and add resources as new ideas are presented. Please reach out to me or memberservices@COGR.edu with any suggestions or questions. N

COGR is the national authority on federal policies and regulations affecting U.S. research institutions. We provide a unified voice for over 225 research universities and affiliated academic medical centers and research institutes. Our work strengthens the research partnership between the federal government and research institutions and furthers the frontiers of science, technology, and knowledge. We advocate for effective and efficient research policies and regulations that maximize and safeguard research investments and minimize administrative and cost burdens. Learn more about COGR on our website.

References

COGR 2023 Survey of F&A Cost Rates | Council on Governmental Relations. (2023). Cogr.edu. www.cogr.edu/cogr-2023-survey-fa-cost-rates.

“Excellence in Research: The Funding Model, F&A Reimbursement, and Why the System Works | Council on Governmental Relations.” Cogr.edu, 2025, www.cogr.edu/excellence-researchfunding-model-fa-reimbursement-and-why-system-works-0

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). (2021). Higher Education Research and Development Survey (HERD) | 2021. [Data set]. National Science Foundation.

Cindy Hope is the Director for Costing & Financial Compliance, leading COGR’s efforts to address federal policies impacting financial management of research. Prior to joining COGR, Cindy served as Associate VP for Research Administration at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She can be reached at chope@cogr.edu.

TRAVELING WORKSHOPS

Indianapolis, IN

NCURA’S VIRTUAL WORKSHOPS OFFER INTERACTIVE, EXPERT-LED SESSIONS LIVE OR ON-DEMAND:

July 14-17, 2025

Departmental Research Administration

September 9-10, 2025 | November 12-13, 2025

Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects

Administration - Part 1: Pre-Award

September 30-October 1, 2025 | November 12-13, 2025

Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects

Administration - Part 2: Post-Award

October 6-9, 2025

Level II: Sponsored Projects Administration

December 1-4, 2025

Contract Negotiation & Administration

INDIANAPOLIS, IN

September 15-17, 2025

Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects Administration

Financial Research Administration

Contract Negotiation & Administration

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

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!

How CliftonStrengths Helped Reshape My Career Perspective

By Carolyn Mazzella

As many of us in the research administration profession like to joke when asked about how we ended up in this career, the usual response is a chuckle and a casual, “Oh, I just fell into it.” I am one of those people, too. Becoming an administrator of research grants was not part of my original plan, but here I am, celebrating 15 years this summer with my university. Throughout my career, I have moved horizontally and vertically between roles in research, whether in adjacent or completely separate research administrative positions. It has been an unusual and often challenging path to build a career. The work is complex and usually difficult to articulate to others–even within our university. The simple phrase “I managed scientific research grants” is valid but general. It underlines the ambiguity of our profession, which can lead to uncertainty within ourselves. Leadership will remind us that we are part of an ecosystem of sorts. Like the roots of a tree, one that we can call “advancing science.” These roots spread and twist into smaller, more specific areas, all feeding and supporting the great oak, that is the advancement of science. That is all well and good. It is the inspiring message touted at conferences and workshops; however, it still does not answer the disconnectedness one can feel in this role. How can the average research administrator support the mission when finding what precisely in this profession is rewarding to the individual can be challenging?

We all want rewarding careers, but the definition of “rewarding” is unique to the person. Each person determines what that looks like. I have found that fulfillment does not come from the mission but from contentment in a role that matches my strengths. Over the years, I have read countless articles claiming ways

to “find your passion” by matching personal ideology with the mission of an organization. However, is this realistic for most people? It depends on the person and their goals. For me, it is not. Besides my regular work and home responsibilities, I have not found another career where I can invest time, money, and extra energy. If I am not going to give it all up for “passion,” how do I find joy where I am planted?

It was not until I attended a professional development session on CliftonStrengths that I had my “ah-ha” moment. For those unfamiliar with CliftonStrengths, it was developed by Don Clifton, who spent decades studying educational psychology. Unlike traditional psychology (at the time), which focused more on intervention and decreasing personal strife, Don posed a simple yet profound question in his field: “What would happen if we studied what was right versus what's wrong with people?” (Gallup, 2024). This is where Clifton first developed the concept of strengths or our natural abilities

At first, his focus was on corporations and how to help employees succeed. In 2001, Clifton branched out to the broader public with his groundbreaking book, Now, Discover Your Strengths, which combined his theory on strength with an online assessment tool. As of today, the assessment tool has been taken by more than 34 million people (Gallup, 2024).

Despite the scientific background of the CliftonStrengths tool, I will admit that I went into the training with skepticism. “Ugh, another silly quiz,” I grumbled as I logged in. “It is just another test that’ll slap some arbitrary label on me without helping.” I was a cynic, to say the least. However, after receiving my top five strengths, I attended an in-person workshop where

we discussed how each of our strengths impacted us individually and as a team (this was a team-based professional development session, after all). I quickly realized I was the odd one out. Most of my team’s top strengths were strategic, while mine was contextual. As a history major who tends to focus on the retrospective, my top strength made perfect sense. However, I began questioning whether research administration was the right path for me, especially since my teammates had different strengths. Before jumping to conclusions about a career change, I contacted a local CliftonStrengths coach to take a deeper look. Through coaching, I understood that I could apply my strengths to many roles—it was not about the label of the job (e.g., pre-award, post-award, compliance) but the actions involved in the job aligned with my strengths.

My strength in “context” involves reviewing situations comprehensively, not just looking back. In post-award administration, I enjoy reading the faculty’s project in the scope of work or project summary. It feeds my strength to understand the larger picture and has proven invaluable in building rapport with faculty. Taking the time to dig deeper into the “why” of a project helps me ask more informed questions, particularly when starting a new working relationship with a faculty member. Another example is my strength in discipline. This is defined as a planned, orderly, and predictable world for Clifton. A mundane action is finding joy in checking off a list or organizing my physical and digital spaces. A more abstract view is that I prefer post-award to pre-award as the role itself is more (in my mind) predictable. The tight proposal deadlines and last-minute faculty or sponsor requests a pre-award administrator inevitably handles, would frustrate me quickly as my d strength in discipline encourages a predictable routine. These are just some examples of everyday tasks, but viewed through the lens of strengths, they help me discern the actions that bring me joy.

CliftonStrengths helped me view my career from a new perspective. I focused on the everyday tasks that aligned with my strengths and contributed to fulfilling the role. Conversely, it also helped me understand why specific tasks are more challenging. These are not necessarily weaknesses but areas where I am not as strong and require more time and energy. Ultimately, this is how I found joy in my job—not because I love managing other people’s research grants. The reward comes from the small, everyday tasks that satisfy my strengths. This "silly" personality assessment helped me reframe my perspective on my job and career, allowing me to stay where I am and find fulfillment. Finding joy in work is not about chasing an external idea of passion but about understanding and leveraging our strengths where we are. N

Reference

Gallup, Inc. (2024, December 17). How the CLIFTONSTRENGTHS Assessment Works www.gallup.com/cliftonstrengths/en/253676/how-cliftonstrengths-works.aspx

Carolyn Mazzella, MPA, CRA, is a Sponsored Projects Administrator at The University of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, PA. Carolyn has worked in university research for 15 years and is currently a post-award administrator for Pitt’s Dietrich School of Arts & Science. She can be reached at mazzellac@pitt.edu.

Crafting Fully Compliant Budgets

This publication introduces foundational concepts and best practices in sponsored project budget development.

Topics include:

• Sponsor Requirements

• Allowable Direct and Indirect Costs on Federal Awards

• Cost Sharing

• Budget Justiﬁcation

• Salary Limitations

• Types of Budgets

• Requirements and Nuances for Federal and Non-Federal Awards

• Sample Calculations and Explanations GET IT HERE! https://onlinelearning.ncura.edu/read-and-explore

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:

Friends With a Little Help From Our

Everyone in the profession of research administration learns early on that to be an excellent research administrator, you must develop key skills. These include an ability to read carefully with close attention to detail; maintain a cool head when up against deadlines and processing multiple applications; and pay acute attention to detail while reviewing a stack of late journal entries, among many others. One critical element above the others, though, has allowed us to meet the demands of research administration. That is leaning in and accessing the collective wisdom of the larger community and the organizations that support our missions. Tapping into the broader community allows us to leverage the knowledge, expertise, experiences, and perspectives of many – helping us solve challenging problems and understand the evolving and complex situations we face.

In this article, we will highlight three examples of how aligning with organizations outside our own helps us survive and thrive in our profession. First, Josef Mejido, Director of Export Controls at the University of Washington, describes how being engaged with professional organizations fosters his career, helps him understand the landscape, and allows him to help serve the research administration community.

I have been working in university export compliance for more than eight years now, which has been an incredibly rewarding experience. The field continues to evolve, making it an exciting and challenging area of compliance. As new export compliance requirements are proposed and implemented, staying on top of these developments is essential to help ensure compliance. Also, the parallel and overlapping area of research security (which includes export compliance) continues to grow. Involvement in professional associations and attendance at conferences is critical to staying on top of regulatory requirements and implementing effective compliance programs.

The Association of University Export Control Officers (AUECO), which is the association for export compliance professionals at higher education institutions in the U.S., has been instrumental in my career. Over the years, I have served as Secretary, Vice-Chair, Chair, and now Past Chair of AUECO. AUECO helps advance expertise in the field of university export compliance, serves as a forum for its members to share information and best practices, acts as a trusted voice to federal regulatory agencies regarding the unique export compliance environments at academic institutions, and also engages with its counterparts in other regions of the world, including the European Export Control Association for Research Organisations (EECARO) and the U.K.’s Higher Education Export Controls Association (HEECA). Also, AUECO works with a predetermined university (or system of cooperating universities) to host the annual Conference on the Impact of Export Controls on Higher Education and Scientific Institutions.

By Anthony Beckman, Josef Mejido, and Istvan Fekete

The Academic Security and Counter Exploitation (ASCE) program, spearheaded by Texas A&M University, hosts an annual conference that brings together professionals from around the world to discuss policy, best practices, and regulatory requirements for safeguarding academic research. My involvement on the ASCE Executive Committee and attendance at the ASCE conference has also been critical to my professional development and ability to stay on top of the changing research security and export compliance landscapes.

Next, we'll hear from Istvan Fekete, a research administrator who began his research administration career at a large academic institution, the University of Chicago, and now works with Attain Partners, a leading consulting firm that directly supports research administration.

Throughout my career in research administration, professional consulting organizations have been invaluable partners. My first experience with professional consulting was as a client. They helped us assess our pre- and post-award functions and implement contract management software.

My job at the time was to manage a contracts team in the central research administration office. When we had staff turnover and departures, I encountered a common challenge: limited in-house staffing solutions. I either performed multiple jobs myself or paid high hourly rates for external counsel who generally lacked research contracting expertise. Recognizing this gap in our field, I transitioned into consulting to create a better solution. This is one of the strengths of professional consulting organizations: they can pivot and innovate far more quickly than large institutional bureaucracies, developing new models that address pressing needs.

In my time as a consultant, I've had the pleasure of working with 50+ organizations on their contracting needs, as well as engaging in a wide range of other projects. This breadth of experience allows me to bring industry best practices to my clients, stay ahead of emerging trends, and introduce new ways of conducting business that my clients can benefit from, regardless of what they hired me to do. Many of us in higher education consulting came from the very organizations that we serve. Many of us transfer across that line repeatedly throughout our careers. This symbiotic relationship brings the best out of all of us.

“These organizations, through their many channels of communication, help me distill what is important from all the noise surrounding us.”

Today, research faces unprecedented challenges. The long-standing models that have shaped our careers are being dismantled, forcing us to rethink how we operate. Navigating this landscape will require ingenuity, perseverance, and a willingness to embrace new ways of conducting business. No single institution or consulting firm will have all the answers. But by working together, sharing knowledge, and supporting one another, we can make informed decisions and help shape the future of research administration in this evolving environment.

Finally, we will hear from Anthony Beckman, a research administrator with more than 20 years of experience, who is the Interim Associate Vice President for Research Administration at the University of Rochester.

In my experiences, which incorporate themes similar to Josef and Istvan, I have found the resources of the research administration community invaluable to my role. While growing my career as a junior research administrator, my mentors—including my former boss Gunta Liders—encouraged me to get involved in NCURA. Being part of a thriving professional organization similar to Josef's allowed me to learn from more experienced individuals and test my understanding when it came time for me to share my knowledge with others. Organizations such as NCURA and AUECO are living examples of the power of having access to experienced people to learn from, a community of peers to share with, and an opportunity to teach and foster those new to the profession. These opportunities cannot be underrated in an ever-changing and uncertain environment.

Having recently transitioned into a new role at my institution, I've come to appreciate more than ever the value of consulting firms that support our profession. We've experienced staffing challenges similar to Istvan and have utilized the expert services of consulting firms to help bridge the gap. Such direct support allowed us to sustain our heavy workloads without risking further burnout from our team. Consulting services also gave us more time to hire a new staff member who would best fit our office. With constantly changing rules, regulations, and requirements, these outside organizations provide a perspective and expertise that any institution would find difficult to develop independently.

We are living in what seems like unprecedented times for the research community. At this moment, organizations such as the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU), and American Council on Education (ACE) are providing collective guidance, leadership, and education that we need to stay informed and in compliance. The pace and volume of change are too much for any person or institution engaged in research to review and respond. These organizations, through their many channels of communication, help me distill what is important from all the noise surrounding us. Their analysis has helped us develop appropriate responses where needed and adapt our existing practices to meet changing demands.

With a little help from our friends, we research administrators can meet the changes and uncertainty of this moment with a collective sense of engagement and shared objectives. We can leverage the accumulated knowledge of a vast array of colleagues to bring awareness and solutions to our institutions, further our missions, and serve the research administration community. N

Anthony Beckman, MA, is the Interim Associate Vice President for Research Administration at the University of Rochester. He has 20+ years of experience in research administration. He is currently a faculty member on the Contract Negotiation and Administration traveling workshop for NCURA. He can be reached at abeckman@orpa.rochester.edu.

Istvan Fekete is Principal at Attain Partners and was previously the Associate Director of Contracts Management at the University of Chicago. He has 13 years of experience in research administration with a focus on clinical research, contract management, business process redesign and system design and implementation. He can be reached at ifekete@attainpartners.com.

Josef Mejido is currently the Director of Export Controls at the University of Washington. He previously worked at the University of Rochester for 10 years. He can be reached at jmejido@uw.edu.

Strategies for Research Administrators in Challenging Environments

By Bella Blaher, Sylvia Ezekilova, Le Li, and Bruno Ceña Sáez

In the challenging profession of research administration, coping with stress, especially under extreme conditions like natural disasters, conflicts, and other similar crises, requires resilience and a supportive community. There are many of our colleagues from around the world who have to work under these conditions. NCURA’s collaborative community allows for knowledge sharing and support among peers, which can be incredibly beneficial during challenging times. We would like you to share how you cope under these extreme conditions.

This was the question the Collaborate Global Working Group in 2024 asked our fellow NCURA colleagues from around the world.

We realized, like ourselves, that our colleagues were busy and our messages via the Collaborate online platform did not elicit as many responses as we’d hoped. Our next step was to personally reach out to members of Region VIII to participate. Emails were sent to approximately 150 people to invite them to participate in an online interview or respond to the questions the committee designed. We received 20 responses with representation from five continents (Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America).

Our participants found navigating the stormy seas of research administration under extreme conditions was like steering a ship through relentless waves and that you need a steadfast crew, a flexible plan, and an unwavering compass. One key lesson gleaned was the importance of robust communication. When everything else is in flux, clear, transparent and consistent communication became the lifeline that kept teams connected and focused. It was not just about relaying information; it was about fostering an open and inclusive environment where every voice is heard, and concerns addressed promptly.

Building a supportive network is akin to weaving a safety net—intricate yet essential. You need to start by cultivating genuine relationships within your team and with external stakeholders. In countries like Japan and Sweden, where collectivism and consensus are deeply

rooted, tapping into these cultural norms can enhance team cohesion. Embracing regular team meetings was not just for work updates but to also check in on personal well-being. In more individualistic cultures like the UK and Australia, recognizing individual contributions while promoting a shared vision can motivate and unite your team.

“Encouraging a growth mindset within teams transformed challenges into opportunities for innovation.”

Our participants emphasized that flexibility was their greatest ally. Extreme conditions demand agility. Be prepared to adapt protocols, reallocate resources, or adjust timelines at a moment's notice. Encouraging a growth mindset within teams transformed challenges into opportunities for innovation. For instance, if a funding source becomes uncertain, perhaps there was an alternative avenue—like industry partnerships or international collaborations—that wasn't previously considered.

NOTABLE PRACTICES

Forward Focused Notable Practices: Priming for Change

Research is dynamic, and research-focused institutions must navigate ways to meet changing priorities while staying true to their culture and values. As peer reviewers, we work with institutions to identify ways to build and sustain infrastructure that meets the changing demands of the research enterprise, all while remaining anchored in their core principles. Over the past few years, these demands have included declining federal funding and increasingly complex projects and compliance requirements.

Optimizing Research Infrastructure and Diversifying Funding

As the federal funding landscape shifts, institutions are strategically investing in prioritized research areas while exploring diverse funding avenues. One such avenue involves increasingly engaging with the private sector to finance research facilities. These partnerships take various forms and require agreements that articulate mutual benefits, define intellectual property rights, and establish clear guidance for all stakeholders.

In addition to engaging with the private sector, research is also engaging with alumni relations to secure gifts and grants from alumni. This necessitates building strong working relationships and developing campaigns aligned with strategic research priorities.

Strengthening Research Infrastructure for Complex Projects and Compliance

To meet the demands of increasingly complex projects and compliance requirements, institutions are taking a variety of strategic measures aimed at building and sustaining robust infrastructure. Peer reviewers have noted institutions creating centralized offices with specialized units for pre- and post-award support. These offices provide expertise in proposal development, budget management, contract negotiation, and compliance with institutional, sponsor, and regulatory requirements. Institutions are also expanding training and education for researchers and staff on compliance issues. These efforts are focused on research ethics, data management practices, and regulatory compliance.

In Summary

Research-focused institutions are proactively adapting to evolving demands, including shifting funding landscapes and increasing project complexity, by strategically diversifying funding sources through private sector partnerships and alumni engagement, and by strengthening their research infrastructure with enhanced administrative support and comprehensive compliance training, all while upholding their core values N

NOTABLE PRACTICES

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

Where institutions were able to leverage technology, they were able to bridge gaps caused by physical distances or logistical hurdles. Virtual collaboration tools were not just practical—they were vital. They maintained the human connection that was essential for morale. Implementing platforms that allowed for real-time collaboration on proposals, shared calendars for deadline tracking, and even informal virtual hangouts was found to be paramount to maintain team spirit.

In regions where infrastructure might pose additional challenges, like Egypt or Ethiopia, establishing contingency plans was crucial. This might involve securing backup communication methods, such as satellite phones or setting up partnerships with local institutions that had more robust infrastructures. Local partners could also offer invaluable insights and resources that might not be immediately apparent.

Compliance and closeout processes can become especially complicated during extreme conditions. Thinking of these research administration processes as the keystone in an arch—they hold everything together. Assigning dedicated team members to monitor compliance ensures that shifting regulations or requirements don't derail your projects. Regular training sessions and updates keep everyone aligned and reduce the risk of oversights.

Leadership plays a pivotal role. Being empathetic and proactive can transform the team's dynamic. Recognizing the unique pressures each team member faces, and offer support tailored to their needs. This could mean

“Together, we can build a stronger, more adaptable community ready to face any challenges ahead.”

providing flexible working hours, offering mental health resources, nurturing a safe space or simply being available to listen. Incorporating mindfulness practices or virtual group activities can significantly alleviate stress. For example, a weekly virtual yoga session or a gratitude-sharing exercise might boost morale and strengthen bonds.

We also asked our participants how NCURA and other research management communities could support them during extreme conditions. Here are some of the suggestions:

• Webinars and Online Training: Offer regular webinars and training sessions on crisis management, including specific modules for dealing with natural disasters, geopolitical instability, and health crises.

• Resource Libraries: Develop comprehensive libraries of resources, best practices, and case studies on handling extreme conditions.

• Peer Support Networks: Facilitate peer-to-peer networks where research administrators can share experiences, advice, and support.

• Regional Chapters: Establish regional chapters that focus on local challenges and provide tailored support.

• Well-being Workshops: Conduct workshops on stress management, mindfulness, and resilience building.

• Advocate for Resources: Lobby for governmental and institutional support, funding, and resources specifically aimed at enhancing resilience to extreme conditions.

• Develop Guidelines: Create and disseminate guidelines and protocols for managing crises effectively.

• Emergency Response Platforms: Implement platforms that facilitate real-time communication and coordination during emergencies.

• Regular Updates: Provide regular updates on emerging threats and best practices for mitigating risks.

Our group was deeply impressed by the breadth and depth of insights shared by our peers. Their examples allowed us to vividly visualize their day-to-day work in this ever-changing era and understand how they cope with stress under extreme conditions while maintaining a positive mindset. The strategies they employ not only influence their colleagues but also contribute to a resilient and supportive community culture. It was a pleasure to conduct this study, and we sincerely hope for future opportunities to continue this discussion and consolidate recommendations from more members, helping our research administration community thrive in times of uncertainty. Together, we can build a stronger, more adaptable community ready to face any challenges ahead.

Reflecting on our exploration into how research administrators manage extreme situations, we've identified several key strategies. Clear and consistent communication is essential, ensuring teams remain connected and focused even when circumstances are unpredictable. Building strong support networks, both within teams and with external partners, provides a reliable safety net during crises. Flexibility and adaptability are crucial, allowing for quick adjustments to plans and protocols as situations evolve. Embracing technology bridges gaps caused by physical distances or logistical hurdles, maintaining the human connection essential for morale. Empathetic and proactive leadership can transform the team's dynamic, recognizing the unique pressures each member faces and offering tailored support. By adopting these approaches, research administrators can not only navigate immediate challenges but also build a foundation for long-term resilience and success in their work. N

Bella Blaher, Manager, Research & Industry, University of Melbourne, has been immersed in the university environment, in research and then administration for more than 25 years. Working in various departments, she has extensive experience liaising with different Universities and research bodies, external stakeholders and government departments both in Australia and internationally. She can be reached at bblaher@unimelb.edu.au.

Sylvia Ezekilova, Assistant Vice Provost, Sponsored Projects George Washington University, is a seasoned leader with 25 years in sponsored projects administration. She has actively contributed to NCURA as a trainer, presenter, and moderator, served on the Select Committee on Global Affairs and co-chaired the Global Affairs Working Group. She can be reached at sezekils@gwu.edu.

Le Li, Senior International Specialist, University of Saskatchewan (Canada), facilitates global collaborations to expand opportunities for faculty, students, and staff to access international experiences, research funding, and networks. She oversees the international research portfolio and engages with partner institutions worldwide to achieve and enhance institutional priorities. She can be reached at le.li@usask.ca.

Bruno Ceña Sáez is a Senior Pre-Award Grants Manager at the Champalimaud Foundation, a non-profit biomedical research organization in Lisbon, Portugal. With more than 20 years of experience in academic and private sectors, he specializes in pre-award research management and strategic funding. Bruno’s expertise in developing competitive grant proposals and fostering international collaborations brings a global perspective to supporting research initiatives and funding strategies. He can be reached at bruno.cena@research.fchampalimaud.org.

NCURA Regional Corner

REGION I New England

www.facebook.com/ncuraregioni

Greetings Region I!

By the time you’re reading this summer is just around the corner, and the Region I Spring Meeting in Manchester, NH, has successfully taken place!

A heartfelt thank you to everyone who contributed their time and energy— your efforts made this event possible. It truly takes a village to plan, implement, and execute such a large and impactful event, and we’re incredibly grateful to all the volunteers who helped make the meeting a success. Each role, no matter how big or small, plays a crucial part in advancing our shared goals of professional development and community building.

In that spirit, I’d like to give a special shout-out to our dedicated Program Committee for their tireless work and commitment to excellence. Your collaboration, creativity, and leadership were instrumental in shaping a meaningful experience for attendees:

• Curtis Van Slyck, Northeastern University – Program Committee Chair, Chair-Elect

• Caitlin Crowley, BVARI – Program Committee Co-Chair, Secretary-Elect

• Manouchka Jean-Gilles, BIDMC – Compliance Track

• Jennifer Sabbagh – Compliance Track

• Jill Mortali, Dartmouth College – Funding Agencies and Sponsors Track

• Theresa Bishop, Bates College – Funding Agencies and Sponsors Track

• Patricia McNulty, BVARI – Management & Leadership Track, Sponsorship Committee Chair

• Saira Valley, Saira Valley Consulting Group – Management & Leadership Track, Workshop Manager/Curriculum Committee Chair

• Louise Griffin, University of New Hampshire – Post-Award Track

• Lisa Zeytoonian, MaineHealth – Post-Award Track

• Leanne Crawley, University of Maine – Pre-Award Track

• Meghan Dill, University of Maine – Pre-Award Track

• Chanda Robe, Harvard University – Pre-Award Track

• Amy Ellis, Yale University – Professional Development Track

• Kat Boots, Brown University – Professional Development Track

• Sandra Castaldini, Babson College – PUI/RD Track

• Lori Parmet, Olin – PUI/RD Track

• Christopher Medalis, School for International Training – Volunteer Committee Chair

• Robert Prentiss, Yale University – Communication and Membership Chair

• Meredith Albuquerque, Southern NH University – Treasurer

• Brandi Glover, Brown University – Treasurer-Elect

• Karen Markin, University of Rhode Island – Secretary

We hope to see many of you at the Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., August 10-13! In the meantime, stay connected with Region I and keep an eye out for upcoming events through our LinkedIn, Instagram, the Region I Members Collaborate Community, and ncuraregioni.org.

Stacy Riseman, MBA is the 2025 Chair of Region I 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.ncuraregion2.org

www.facebook.com/groups/ncuraregionii

Hello Region II,

After much passionate discussion and weighing of our options, Region II has decided to make our 2025 fall meeting virtual. It was a tough decision: We love getting together to see each other in person to make new connections, support each other, and connect in the hospitality suite, preferably decked out in creative costumes and/or makeup. However, the pressures our region is facing due to federal cuts to research has created uncertainty and financial difficulties for many of us. And hey, with a virtual meeting we can have speakers and attendees from all over the country at a reduced price, making our meeting more inclusive and attendable! We’re committed to bringing a quality virtual meeting to our members. Another upside to a virtual meeting is that presenting online can be a little less intimidating than doing so in a room full of people. So, we encourage newbie presenters to jump on board and send us fresh ideas! Doesn’t matter where you’re from and you don’t have to register for the meeting. We’ll even pair you up with a more experienced presenter if you’d like. We’d love to hear from you.

To that end, we’re inviting session proposal submissions for the virtual Regional Meeting to be held October 28 & 29, 2025. To submit proposals and for more information, visit the meeting webpage (www.ncuraregion2.org/2025-regional-meeting) or contact Catherine Parker at caparker@umd.edu. Watch for announcements on the Region II website, Facebook, Collaborate, and in e-blasts and the quarterly newsletter Please also reach out to me if you have any suggestions for programming, networking opportunities or events/activities.

In other news, the 2025 cohort for the Cheryl-Lee Howard Mentor Me Program has been announced! Congratulations to the following mentees and mentors: Juliana Brush, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Sciences, with Mentor Hilary Mosher, University of Rochester; Jaycee Turner, University of Rochester, with Mentor Mary Louise Healy, Johns Hopkins University; Haley Chavez, Mercy University, with Mentor Gillian Silver, Morgan State University; Jennifer Surrena, Penn State University (Behrend College), with Mentor Erin Pyrek, Cornell University; and Ana Tricoli, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, with Mentor Magui Cardona, University of Baltimore. Thank you to all our wonderful mentors and mentees!

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 summer, Flamingos! Region III members had a blast reconnecting at our 2025 Region III Spring Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky! We are deeply grateful to our members and volunteers, each of whom played a crucial role in our significant professional development and networking. A special thank you to the Planning Committee (listed below) for their hard work and dedication to making our meeting a success!

Celeste Rivera-Nunez (Univ. of Central Florida): Chair

Jeanne Viviani-Ayers (Univ. of Central Florida): Co-Chair

Tamara Hill (Morehouse School of Medicine): Treasurer

Rebecca Wessinger (Univ. of South Carolina): Secretary

Randi Wasik (Univ. of Louisville): Attendee Experience

Lora Bailey (Virginia State Univ.): Volunteer

Savannah Britz (Univ. of South Carolina): Meeting App

Tracy Lauder (Auburn Univ.): New Member Activities

Erika Cottingham (Auburn Univ.): Sponsorship

Stephanie Broxton (Georgia Tech): Community Connection

Trey Bauer (Univ. of Kentucky Louisville): A/V

Shelby Mills (Univ. of South Carolina): Public Relations

Jenn Garye (Florida State Univ.): Social Media

Jessica Lambdin (Florida State Univ.): Surveys & Evaluations

Gerard Kwilecki (Univ. of South Alabama): Website

Lee Broxton (Georgia Tech): Recognition and Nominations

It is also time to pass the Region III leadership baton. Jeanne Viviani-Ayers has worked tirelessly as Chair for the past term and is now the Immediate Past Chair. Celeste Rivera-Nunez will take up the reins as our new Chair while Tanta Myles (Georgia Institute of Technology) has finished her term as Immediate Past Chair. We also welcome Ford Simmons (Medical University of South Carolina) as our incoming Chair-Elect. Thank you to all our executive committee members for serving Region III! Please see volunteer opportunities on our website. Many openings are one-time or small commitments of time and are a fantastic way to begin getting involved with NCURA and Region III.

We hope to see many Region III members at the Annual Meeting, August 10-13, 2025! Keep up with the latest regional news on Facebook, Instagram, the RIII Members Collaborate Community, and ncuraregioniii.com.

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

The Future’s So Bright. Even though we’re facing unprecedented funding challenges at our institutions, the future is bright, and we are rising to challenges every day. More than 310 research administrators proved our spring meeting theme, The Future’s So Bright, as true May 4-7 at the Swissotel in downtown Chicago. We welcomed 47 new members and for 117 attendees, this was their first regional meeting. It was an excellent program of workshops, concurrent and discussion, poster sessions, connecting, and sharing forward thinking ideas for our futures.

Thank you to the people who made this meeting successful and entertaining, the tireless volunteers, impressive presenters, and an outstanding and creative program committee for our spring meeting. The program committee members were Kate Chie (University of Michigan), Liz Grinstead (University of Chicago), John Schwartz (University of Cincinnati) and Beth Woods (University of Illinois Chicago). Track leads were Ali Adams (Washington University in St Louis), Bryan Bachman (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign), Micah Carson (University of Missouri), Maura Cleffi (Northwestern University), Nichole Crist (University of Chicago), Bruxanne El-Kammash (University of Chicago), Shanshan Gao (University of North Dakota), Faith Goenner (University of Minnesota), Lynn Graves (University of Chicago), Shanon Hankin (University of Wisconsin Madison), Darren Howard (Moraine Valley Community College), Karan Hustedt-Warren (Purdue University), Joe Johnson (University of Michigan), Michele Kennett (University of Missouri), Tamara C. Kuhn Martin (University of Wisconsin - Madison), Hang McLaughlin (University of Minnesota), Mario Medina (University of Kansas Medical Center), Hansa Magee (University of Missouri), Nicole Quartiero (Notre Dame University), Kristel Seth (Minnesota State University - Mankato), Melissa Taylor (Purdue University), Sam Westcott (University of Wisconsin Milwaukee).

The spring meeting marks the end of a term for some of our board members and a welcoming of new members. Thanks to Immediate Past Chair Roger Wareham, and board members Lauren Gee, Hang McLaughlin, and Beth Woods. We are very happy to welcome to the board Kelly Andringa, Chair-elect, Matthew Morgan, Treasurer-elect, board members Lauren Gee (for another two-year term), Mellani Lubuag and Stephanie Wilbrand, and Heather Offhaus, regionally elected member to the national board (term beginning January 1, 2026 to align with national terms).

Next year’s spring meeting will be in St. Louis, April 19-22, 2026, at the Hilton St. Louis at the Ball Park. It will be a knock it out of the ballpark meeting! Here’s to a great year!

Sandy Fowler is the 2025 Chair of Region IV and serves as the Assistant Dean for Research for the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. She can be reached at sandy.fowler@wisc.edu.

REGION V

www.facebook.com/ncuraregionv

Howdy Region V!

I’d like to first acknowledge the uncertainty, apprehension, and concern I know we’re collectively feeling as we encounter funding reductions and staffing turnovers. I offer my support to those of you undergoing these difficulties and encourage you to reach out to your Region V family for funding advice, job opportunities, or simply a sympathetic ear. Our Region is active in the NCURA Collaborate Community and on LinkedIn. These are spaces where everyone is heard, supported, and uplifted.

We’re energized as the Region V Program Committee continues building plans and securing sessions for the 2025 Fall Meeting. We’ve got over 8 workshops, 40 sessions, and lots of amazing wellness and connection activities in the works. We will be hosting a RACC Body of Knowledge session to continue bolstering your professional and career development and we’ve recently secured our star opening Keynote Speaker! Keep an eye out for that announcement and how they will provide insights to further strengthen our understanding of the Power of Y’all.

While we’ve closed applications for presentation proposals, reach out to ncuraregionv@gmail.com to request partnering with a presenter! Your voices are vital to our success.

I look forward to celebrating The Power of Y'all at our 2025 Region V Fall Meeting, October 19-22, 2025, in San Marcos, TX. Registration will open June 1. Visit the NCURA Region V Website for details on how to book your hotel, view the schedule-at-a-glance, anticipated registration costs, and other important information throughout the year!

Looking ahead, I’d like to thank the 2026 Site Selection Committee for their incredible work in selecting our future 2026 Regional Meeting Site. Thank you to Nicole Babilya, Rebekah Craig, and Robyn Cooper for your diligent work and thank you especially to our Site Selection Committee Chair – Sheleza Mohamed – who negotiated an amazing location and perks package. I look forward to sharing those details and the future site with you in San Marcos!

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 solidarity, community, 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

Summer is right around the corner, and it seems as though only yesterday we were emerging from the confines of COVID and now we face another challenge with the recent administration change and Executive Orders. It is now more important than ever for us to work together and reach out with questions and provide our members with resources and support.

To meet this ever-increasing need, the Education and Professional Development Committee is continuing to develop and schedule new offerings during what has become a very popular lunchtime series. Sessions should be announced soon for the summer, watch your emails!

Our regional membership continues to be strong at more than 1300 members. The officers and committee chairs are working hard to maintain and build on this momentum with numerous outreach and volunteering efforts. Please continue to visit our website for updates.

Program planning for the regional meeting in Costa Mesa, CA is well under way and proposals for sessions it open. If you are still interested in presenting or being a co-presenter of the awesome program that Vice Chair Patrick Lennon and his Region VII counterpart Garrett Steed are developing, please submit right away! Once again, this year, the region has a strong showing of volunteers to help put this program together.

• Post-award: Niraj K. Raman

• Human Capital/Professional Development: Jessica Kim

• Department and PUI: Jaclyn Lucas

• Pre-award: Kimberly Smith

• Contracting: Sherrie Dennehy

• Compliance & How-to: Charleen Mininfield

• Federal: Rosie Madnick

Registration for AM67 is now open. If you are a new member planning to attend the Annual Meeting of the membership in Washington, DC, please reach out to our Membership Outreach Chair, Kari Vandergust at karivan@stanford.edu. We will have a new member welcome call before the annual meeting, so stay tuned for the date announcement. In addition, if you would like to volunteer at the Region 6 connection table (a great way to meet members from our region) please contact our Membership and Volunteer–Meetings Chair Mich Pane at michiko@stanford.edu for more information. We have exciting plans for engagement and networking for our new members this year so we hope you will be able to join us!

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 matthew.michener@wsu.edu.

Hello there, Jackalopes!

www.facebook.com/groups/NCURARegionVII

Region VII would like to wish everyone a Happy Fiscal New Year! Here’s hoping that FY26 brings stability and increased funding for all.

Here’s the latest news in our Region:

• Betty Rasmussen has graciously agreed to serve as Volunteer Coordinator, taking over for Chair-Elect Garrett Steed. Thanks, Betty!

• Our Awards Committee, led by Members-at-Large Eric Everett and Carrie Childs, are working on Region VII’s travel awards for this year’s Annual Meeting and the Region VI/VII Regional Meeting. Applications and nominations are due by May 30, 2025.

We continue planning for our upcoming Regional Meeting with Region VI in beautiful Costa Mesa, CA! The meeting will be at the Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel. The area is beautiful, walkable, and surrounded by great restaurants, shopping, and activities! The Program Committee has released the call for workshop and session proposals with a deadline of May 31, 2025. We would love to have your ideas and suggestions for presentations and workshops! Our theme is “Building the Future of Research Administration,” and we invite you to come build with us!

We will begin gearing up for the Annual Meeting (AM67) in August soon as well. We’ve heard rumors that there will be regional games (and prizes?) again this year. It might be hard to top last year’s flying jackalopes, but Region VII will certainly try!

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 Betty Rasmussen (betty.rasmussen@colorado.edu). Betty 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.

Dear Region VIII members, Especially in times of uncertainty and change, staying connected and focusing on our shared challenges as research administrators is more important than ever. In-person gatherings remain a valuable opportunity to build lasting relationships, exchange best practices, and foster a sense of community within our profession.

In March of this year, we have already seen strong international engagement, with more than 20 non-US participants attending FRA and more than 30 joining us at PRA in San Diego (U.S.). Looking ahead, many of us will have another chance to connect at the INORMS conference in Madrid (Spain) this May.

In the meantime, registration is now open for the 67th NCURA Annual Meeting, taking place August 11–13 in Washington, DC (U.S.). Region VIII will also host its Regional Business Meeting during the event, and I look forward to seeing many of you there.

Given that NCURA is organizing an AI Symposium on Saturday, August 9 in Washington, DC (U.S.), we have decided not to add an additional Region VIII workshop after the conference. Instead, we are focusing on creating meaningful networking opportunities during these days. One such occasion will be our Region VIII dinner on Monday evening, which you will be able to register for soon.

In addition to our in-person events, we are continuing to offer highquality online programming. On June 5 (1–2:30 PM ET), Region VIII will host a FREE webinar titled: “Navigating Challenges in Research Administration in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.”

This session will feature five insightful case studies presented by speakers from a variety of LMICs. Each speaker will share the unique challenges they face, as well as the best practices they have implemented within their institutional and national contexts. The presentations will be followed by a panel discussion and live Q&A. You can find the registration link on our website.

Whether online or in person, I hope to see you at one of our upcoming events!

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.

Looking to Boost Your Heart Health? Try a Baked Potato

The potato is small enough to fit inside a person’s hand yet contains enough nutrients to whittle waistlines and lower blood sugar in adults with Type 2 diabetes. Yet, despite the fact that potatoes –particularly the skins – are packed with health-boosting nutrients, they routinely get a bad rap among dieters.

That may soon change, thanks to new research by Neda Akhavan, assistant professor in the Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences within UNLV’s School of Integrated Health Sciences. Akhavan recently presented her findings on the cardiovascular benefits of potatoes for those living with Type 2 diabetes to the Alliance for Potato Research and Education.

“I like doing research on food items that are highly stigmatized in the nutrition world,” she said. “Most people associate the potato as something that is mostly fried or has a lot of fat, and we wanted to shine a light on how a potato – when prepared properly – can be both functional and healthy.”

Putting Potatoes to the Test

Akhavan enlisted 24 participants for the study, all of whom had Type 2 diabetes that was well controlled with medication. Funded by the Alliance for Potato Research and Education, this is believed to be the first study of its kind to scientifically measure the cardiovascular benefits of potatoes for adults with diabetes.

Participants in the study group were each given a pre-prepared baked potato with the skin measured to 100g, with only 20 grams of carbohydrates, roughly enough to fit in one hand to incorporate as a snack or side with meals daily. The control group was given a similar potion of white rice with the same number of calories and carbohydrates. The study ran daily for 12 weeks, which is considered the minimum time needed to see changes in indices of glycemic control and cardiometabolic health.

Study participants were permitted to add herbs or spices to the potatoes, or up to ½ tbsp of butter, but they were advised not to fry their potato.

Key Takeaways and Recommendations

A modest decrease in fasting blood glucose levels was present for study participants who ate potatoes. Study participants also showed improvements in body composition, waist circumference, and a decrease in resting heart rate.

“The results from our study provide evidence that white potatoes can be healthfully incorporated in the diet of individuals with Type 2 diabetes when substituted for other foods with a high glycemic load, such as long-grain white rice,” Akhavan said. “Additionally, there were no harmful effects on measured health outcomes, and some cardiometabolic health benefits were shown, which aligned with what we expected to see. Therefore, diabetics should not shy away from potatoes.”

Akhavan says that just like all foods, moderation – and preparation methods–are key.

“Potatoes are a very versatile food and can be eaten with most types of cuisines, but you want to make sure to incorporate them into a well-rounded diet,” she said. “For those tight on time, consider making a large batch of

baked or roasted potatoes and meal prep to last you a while. I’m not against boiling potatoes, but you want to keep as much of the potassium from the skin as you can, and you lose some of that when you boil them.”

Making the Case for Potatoes

Potatoes are the richest source of dietary potassium in Western diets, and high potassium diets have been shown to prevent high blood pressure and Type 2 diabetes development. Additionally, potato skins contain a certain type of fiber called "resistance starch," which have been shown to improve glucose control, lipid profiles, and satiety. Because of these added health benefits, Akhavan recommends eating potatoes with the skin.

So, the next time you want to reach for a banana, she added, reach for that potato instead.

“A lot of people are shocked to learn that a potato has a higher level of potassium than a banana,” she said. “Believe it or not, a baked potato is one of the most satiating foods consumed within the western diet. And, when it is consumed baked, it increases our ability to feel fuller throughout the day.”

Akhavan intends to expand the study in the coming months to include a larger and more diverse participant population, and incorporation of potatoes within a Mediterranean dietary pattern. She also plans to explore the role of potato consumption and its effects on dietary patterns and related health benefits. N

For the complete article visit https://www.unlv.edu/news/article/looking-boost-yourheart-health-try-baked-potato

NCURA Calendar of Events

TRAVELING WORKSHOPS

• Contract Negotiation and Administration Workshop

September 15-17, 2025 Indianapolis, IN

• Financial Research Administration Workshop September 15-17, 2025 Indianapolis, IN

• Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects Administration Workshop September 15-17, 2025 Indianapolis, IN

VIRTUAL WORKSHOPS

• Financial Research Administration Workshop

June 9-12, 2025

1:00-5:00 pm ET

• Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects Administration Workshop Part I - Pre-Award

June 16-17, 2025

12:30-4:30 pm ET

• Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects Administration Workshop Part 2 - Post-Award

June 24-25, 2025

12:30-4:30 pm ET

• Departmental Research Administration Workshop

July 14-17, 2025

1:00-5:00 pm ET

For further details and updates visit our events calendar at www.ncura.edu.

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

REGIONAL MEETINGS

• Region II (Mid-Atlantic) October 28-29 2025 Virtual Meeting

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

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