December 2024 NCURA Magazine

DECEMBER 2024

NCURA

ELECTRONIC-ONLY ISSUE VOLUME 56, NO. 6

MAGAZINE

LOOKING TOWARD THE

HORIZON

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE ➥ A View from Washington, DC: What Does the Future Hold ➥ Pre-Award Data Analytics ➥ Survey on AI in Research Administration Published by The National Council of University Research Administrators

A Guide to Effective Strategies and Recommended Practices

T

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

NCURA’s comprehensive resource can help to support your team and partner offices across your institution. It covers the full range of issues impacting the grant lifecycle with more than 20 chapters including: • Research Compliance • Subawards • Audits • Export Controls • Administering Contracts • Sponsored Research Operations Assessment • Pre-Award Administration • Intellectual Property & Data Rights • F&A Costs • Regulatory Environment • Communications • Organizational Models • Post-Award Administration • Special Issues for Academic Medical Centers • Special Issues for Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs) • Training & Education • Staff and Leadership Development

By the Numbers • 1100 index references • 40 articles added over the past year • 21 chapters • Updated 4 times a year • 1 low price

With today’s remote work environment this comprehensive P DF resource can be shared with your institution colleagues.

Recent Articles Include: • Evaluating the Impact of Internal Submission Deadline Policy on Grant Proposal Success • Preparing for and Surviving an Audit: Helpful Tips • When Did You Say Your Proposal Was Due? Working on Short Deadlines • Defining and Documenting Financial Compliance for Complex Costs • Troublesome Clauses: What to Look for and How to Resolve Them • Rewards of a Two-Part Subrecipient Risk Assessment • Proposal Resubmission: Overcoming Rejection • Mitigating Audit Risk at Small Institutions • Fundamentals of Federal Contract Negotiation • Managing Foreign Subawards from Proposal to Closeout • How to Reduce Administrative Burden in Effort Reporting • Strategies for Increasing Indirect Cost Recovery with NonFederal Sponsors • A Guide to Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRCs) • Building Research Administration Community Through Service • Turning Off Turnover - The Use of a Progression Plan to Attract and Retain Employees

NCURA Magazine | December 2024

FEATURES Summary of Significant Updates to Research Misconduct and Export Controls Regulations

By Tessa Seales and Lissette Gilster........................................... 4 Empowering Teams to Stay Ahead in Research Administration

By Crystal James..................................................................... 9

64

9

27

A Research Administrator’s User Guide to Internal Controls – Part II

By Adrienne Larmett and Roseann Luongo............................52

Competitive Intelligence as a Mechanism to Inform Institutional Research Decision-Making

By Hansa Magee and Sarah Polasky ........................................17

Research Administration in Europe: Harnessing Weak Signals and Global Trends to Shape Research

By Jérôme Rickmann............................................................54

Inclusion Initiatives: Beyond the Horizon, A Bright Future—Advancing Diversity, Equity, and, Inclusion in NCURA and Research Administration

By Tanya Blackwell...............................................................20

Staying Ahead Without Falling Behind: Navigating the Research Administration Landscape at a Predominantly Undergraduate Institution

By Carolina Pizarro.............................................................55

A View from Washington, DC: What Does the Future Hold

By Deborah Altenberg, Sarah Spreitzer, and Meredith Asbury...................................................................22

Federal Demonstration Partnership’s IT Security Term Sheet

By Heide J. Eash and Julie Robinson..................................... 57

Research Administration Job Family—Looking Toward the Horizon

By Zoya Davis-Hamilton, Thomas B. Spencer, and Kristina Chavez...................................................................24

PRIM&R Reaches a Milestone.........................................59

Looking Toward the Horizon: Libraries in Direct and Indirect Costs

By Hilary Craiglow.............................................................. 27

New Era in Research Development with the Launch of the EMERGE Resource Library for MSIs and ERIs

By Kimberly Eck and Japera Hemming..................................33 You Can’t Stop the Beat: Training and Retention for a Changing World in Research Administration

By Ashley Marciano and Timothy Schailey.............................36 Pre-Award Data Analytics: Roadmap to Process Improvement

By Kimberly Griffin, Olivia Priedeman, and Tanvi Khot........39

43

Starting Strong: A Young Professional’s Path in Research Administration

By Leah Wander and Carol Bitzinger.....................................41 Design Thinking and Contract Optimization: A New Horizon in Contract Drafting

By Phillip R. Boyce...............................................................43

Find NCURA on your favorite social media sites!

And Now for Something Completely Different: A 2025 Pre-Award Survival Guide

By Andre L. Walker..............................................................49

Evolving Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulatory Framework: US and EU Perspectives—NCURA 2nd AI Summit, Plenary Session

By David Richardson and Ara Tahmassian.............................13

Self Care for the Research Administrator: Before Burnout Settles In—Meditation in Practice with Research Administration

By Vanessa Rook...................................................................30

35

Research Administration in Africa: Embracing the Future—Evaluating the Next Big Thing in E-Learning Technologies for Uganda’s Public Universities

By Elvis Muyanja.................................................................47

Cracking the Code: Intellectual Property Rights for International RMAs

By Maria Marti Prieto and Sia Gosheva-Oney.......................45 facebook.com/NCURA59

instagram.com/NCURA1959

Enhancing Community Engagement in Research: Empowering and Training the Community Advisory Board to Review Broad Research and Enhance Equity

By Jeralyn Pierre....................................................................61 2024 Exploratory Workshop: The Evolving Landscape of Human Research with AI—Putting Ethics into Practice

By Marianna Azar...............................................................63 A Survey on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Research Administration

By Lisa Buoncuore, Youyou Cheng, Kira Gantt, Esmatullah Jafari, Karen Markin, and Lisa Wilson................64

NCURA NEWS President’s Message..........................................................3 Board Update.....................................................................8 Research Management Review....................................... 12 Outgoing Volunteers Recognition................................. 26 Work Smart..................................................................... 35 Notable Practices............................................................56 Education Scholarship Fund Select Committee Update..................................................... 58 Training Tips....................................................................70 Regional Corner.............................................................. 72 Spotlight on Research.................................................... 78 Calendar of Events........................................ Back Cover twitter.com/NCURA

youtube.com/NCURA1959

NCURA MAGAZINE

VOLUME 56, NO. 6

NCURA MAGAZINE

DECEMBER 2024

ELECTRONIC-ONLY ISSUE

LOOKING TOWARD THE HORIZON

VOLUME 56, NO. 6

LOOKING TOWARD THE

HORIZON

IN THIS ISSUE: If there was ever a year that being able to see into the future, 2024 would probably have been it for research administration. For most NCURA members, the number of regulatory changes that came at in 2024 is more than we could guess. Others, though, fortunately know about all of them.

This issue was meant to be about strategies that can be used to anticipate changes to compliance regulations and sponsor funding agenda, and then how we prepare as we wait for the next shoe to drop. There are some great articles about anticipation and being ready. But there are also some fine articles about what to do when those changes are released.

Regarding the art of prediction, suggestions include listening to experts as described in Dave Richardson and Ara Tahmassian’s article on the evolution of AI, and Hansa Magee and Sarah Polasky describe their process for collecting and analyzing data to chart the course for their institution.

Responding to the changes comes from several perspectives. Tessa Seales and Lisette Gilster share and clarify changes to conflict of interest and export control changes. Elvis Muyanja writes about harnessing technology to enhance learning. Crystal James described the importance of empowering teams so that they would be ready for anything new. Andre Walker, with something completely different, suggests that we need to include compassion when working through change because, sometimes, change is hard.

There were no articles using popular fortune telling resources like tarot cards or tea leaves. But the theme within this theme that came through time and again is that we need to pay attention, work together, and use the resources that NCURA provides us. We need to be open, ready, and resilient. N ALSO IN THIS ISSUE

➥ A View from Washington, DC: What Does the Future Hold ➥ Pre-Award Data Analytics ➥ Survey on AI in Research Administration Published by The National Council of University Research Administrators

Martin B. Williams is the Grant and Compliance Manager at Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Engineering. He has developed and led research administration operations in predominantly undergraduate institutions for more than 25 years. Martin is a Co-Editor of NCURA Magazine, a former member of several national and regional committees, and a former regional officer. He can be reached at Martin.Williams@vaughn.edu.

SENIOR EDITOR

EXECUTIVE EDITOR

CO-EDITORS

COPY EDITORS

Kathleen Halley-Octa Attain Partners

Paulo Loonin Duke University School of Medicine

Martin Williams Vaughn College of Aeronautics & Technology

Kelly Millsaps University of North Georgia

Angela Wishon Prisma Health

Tolise Dailey Georgetown University Medical Center

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Career Development Lamar Oglesby Rutgers University

Clinical/Medical Christina Stanger MedStar Health Research Institute

Global - U.S. MC Gaisbauer University of California, San Francisco Christopher Medalis School for International Training

Pre-Award

Collaborators

Bruxanne El-Kammash University of Chicago

Lisa Mosley Yale University

Katherine Kissmann Texas A&M University

Compliance

Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions

Jeff Seo Northeastern University Kairi Williams University of California, Berkeley

Contracting Charles Bartunek Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Jill Frankenfield University of Maryland, Baltimore

Departmental Research Administration Kelly Andringa University of Iowa Alesia El Ali University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

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 Albana Cejne Princeton University

Michelle Gooding Barry University Shuna McMichael Occidental College

Research Development Camille Coley University of San Francisco

Self-Care Kristen Massey University of Tennessee Minessa Konecky Minessa InK

Senior Administrator Lisa Nichols University of Michigan 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 Lisa Stroud University of Florida

Josephine Amuron African Center for Global Health and Social Transformation

Training Tips

Global - Asia Pacific

Work Smart

Bella Blaher University of Melbourne

Global - Europe

Visit www.ncura.edu/PublicationsStore/ NCURAMagazine/Submissions.aspx

Beth Jager Claremont McKenna College

Kasey Schubert Tufts University

Global - Africa

Interested in contributing an article?

Marc Schiffman NCURA

Jérôme Rickmann Aalto University Nicolas Schulthess Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts

Abby Guillory University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Hagan Walker Prisma Health

Young Professionals Carol Bitzinger Ohio State University Katie Gomez Southern Utah University

Global - Middle East Kathleen Furr Cornell University The NCURA Magazine accepts advertisements for products and services pertinent to university research administration. In addition, display advertisements (including those for position openings) will also be published. The minimum rate is $1,000.

Advertisements and articles should not be construed as official endorsements by NCURA. For additional information on advertising or changes in address, please contact: National Council of University Research Administrators 1015 18th Street, NW, Suite 901 Washington, DC 20036 www.ncura.edu

2

NCURA Magazine

|

December 2024

To request permission to reprint material from the NCURA Magazine, please send your inquiry to Marc Schiffman at schiffman@ncura.edu and include the issue, name of article and where you are looking to reprint it. © 2024 National Council of University Research Administrators

MESSAGE FROM YOUR PRESIDENT

By Kris Monahan, NCURA President

Dear Colleagues,

A

s I write my last President’s message, I am amazed how quickly the year has passed. I am humbled by the opportunity to lead this organization and in awe of what NCURA has accomplished over the year. Behind every groundbreaking discovery are dedicated research administrators— professionals who ensure research thrives within the framework of strategy, integrity and compliance. At the center of our work lies our values of integrity excellence, service, collegiality, transparency, and inclusiveness.

NCURA is fully committed to expanding pathways into the profession and fostering a global community that celebrates the unique contributions of research administrators. Building a strong pipeline into research administration is critical to the future of our profession and a pillar of NCURA’s strategic plan. NCURA has taken actions this year to focus on building the pipeline to the profession in some concrete ways: 1) promotion of the student affiliate program 2) creation of a new apprentice membership category as institutions consider apprenticeship models to “grow their own” research administrator 3) supporting the Young Professional Program 4) establishing the inaugural Emerging Excellence awards for those newer to the profession and 5) promoting the NCURA Region IV Career Pathways project that develop tools and resources to share with career services offices.

Our membership and these pathways to the profession are not linear, direct or predictable. For example, our global membership has many academics who choose research management as their preferred profession, after exploring academia. With a robust and diverse membership of over 9,500, NCURA embraces diversity in all its form across cultures, institutions, and individual experiences.

It is important that all of our members find belonging, purpose and meaning in their work and their engagement with NCURA. Through the Select Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (SCDEI) webinar series, the EMERGE program, collaboration and volunteer

opportunities, regional mentoring programs, NCURA remains a vital resource for supporting professionals at all institution types.

“Building a strong pipeline into research administration is critical to the future of our profession…”

Together we are shaping, enhancing, and growing our profession in small and large steps. We build this profession with one relationship, one grant, and one research administrator at a time. Naeem Callaway, a nonprofit leader, said “Sometimes the smallest step in the right direction ends up being the biggest step of your life. Tiptoe if you must, but take a step.” Thank you for being a vital part of this community and for the steps you take every day to advance research administration.

Sincerely,

Kris A. Monahan, PhD, is the 2024 NCURA President and serves as Senior Director, Sponsored Projects and Research Compliance at Providence College. She can be reached at kmonaha6@providence.edu.

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

3

Summary of Significant Updates to Research Misconduct and Export Controls Regulations

By Tessa Seales and Lissette Gilster

W

ithin days of each other in September 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Research Integrity (ORI), and the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry Security (BIS) issued final rules that can significantly change the manner in which grantees approach their respective research integrity and export controls compliance programs.

We offer a summary of both rules, including suggestions for action items.

proceedings, including: all records and documentation relied on in the proceedings, the inquiry report and appeals, transcribed interviews, an index of records and evidence, and description of records not relied on during the inquiry.

The Final Rule requires that Interviews be transcribed, that respondents must have access to interview transcripts, and that all materials and exhibits included in the institutional record be numbered.

ORI Issues Final Changes to Research Misconduct Regulations For the first time in approximately twenty years, ORI sought comments to update its research misconduct regulations appearing in 42 C.F.R. Part 93.

Following a request for public comments, HHS released a final rule in the Federal Register on September 17, 2024, at 89 Fed. Reg. 76280-76309 (“Final Rule”). The final rule is effective January 1, 2025, but will not be applicable until January 1, 2026. During the Association of Research Integrity Officers (ARIO) Conference hosted in Chicago from September 16th-18th, Sheila Garrity, Director for ORI, stated that ORI plans to issue draft policy guidance as well as additional resources to assist institutions in updating their policies and maneuvering the final rule.

Action Items Institutions should conduct a gap analysis with their institutional policy and procedure to determine any necessary revisions and then create a timeline leading up to the implementation date of January 1, 2026, that considers deadlines for policy revisions, and the time to navigate the institution’s governance process. Institutions should also keep their eyes open for implementation guidance from reputable sources, including ORI, professional associations and reputable consulting and law firms.

The following table (see next page) is a summary of the updates appearing in the Final Rule.

Key Changes The Final Rule formalizes the pre-inquiry assessment. This means that the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) or designated institutional official is required to evaluate, determine, and document whether the allegation 1) meets the definition of research misconduct, 2) is within the jurisdiction of Part 93, and 3) is credible such that evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The Final Rule expands the required components of both the Inquiry Report and the Investigation Report.

The Final Rule requires institutions to transmit a full institutional record to ORI after a final determination in research misconduct

BIS Interim Final Rule on Quantum and Other Technology BIS issued an interim final rule (“IFR”) on September 6, 2024. The IFR imposes new multilateral worldwide licensing controls on technologies that have reached broad technical agreement among our international partners. The intent of the IFR is to enhance international collaboration among U.S. allies and key suppliers of these critical technologies while imposing similar export controls. These controls will apply to certain advanced technologies, such as quantum computing, semiconductorrelated technology, Gate All-Around Field Effect Transistors (GAAFET) technology, and additive manufacturing technology.

4

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

Assessment

Final Rule formalizes the pre-inquiry assessment.

The RIO or other designated institutional official is required to evaluate, determine, and document whether the allegation 1) meets the definition of research misconduct, 2) is within the jurisdiction of Part 93, and 3) is credible such that evidence of research misconduct may be identified.

Inquiry

An inquiry committee is no longer necessary. Per the Final Rule the RIO or another designated institutional official may conduct the inquiry.

Inquiry Report

Final Rule expands the required components of the inquiry report: - The composition of the inquiry committee (if a committee is used) - Inventory of sequestered research records and evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted - Transcripts of any transcribed interviews - Timeline and procedural history - Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted - Basis on which any allegations do not merit investigation - Any institutional actions implemented, including communications with journals or funding agencies

Investigation Report

Final Rule expands the required components of the investigation report: - Composition of the investigation committee - Inventory of sequestered research records and evidence, except records not relied upon, and description of how sequestration was conducted - Transcripts of all interviews conducted - Identification of publications, manuscripts, PHS funding applications, progress reports, presentations, research records, etc., containing material linked to the alleged research misconduct - Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted

Institutional Record

Final Rule now requires institutions to transmit a full institutional record to ORI after a final determination in research misconduct proceedings, including: - All records compiled or generated and relied upon in the proceedings - Documentation of the assessment stage - Inquiry report (if inquiry stage was reached) - Transcripts of all transcribed interviews - Record of any institutional appeal - Index listing all research records and evidence that the institution compiled during the proceeding - General description of records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on

Investigation Timeframe

Final Rule extends the investigation time limit from 120 days to 180 days. If investigation exceeds 180 days, institutions must still request an extension from ORI.

Definitions Added

- Intentionally – to act with the aim of carrying out the act - Knowingly – to act with awareness of the act - Recklessly – to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism

Plagiarism

- Final Rule clarifies the definition of plagiarism, including stating that self-plagiarism and authorships disputes do not constitute plagiarism – therefore do not constitute research misconduct

Subsequent Use Exception

- Final Rule narrows the subsequent use exception, stating it only applies “when the respondent uses, republishes or cited to the portion(s) of the research record that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized…within six years of when the allegations were received”

Confidentiality

- Final Rule states that the confidentiality restriction applies until the institution has made its final determination in the research misconduct process - Concept of “need to know” clarified – may now include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions

Respondent Record Retention

- If a respondent claims to possess records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct – final rule permits such evidentiary finding only if the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request

Interview Transcripts

- Interviews in the investigation stage must be transcribed and the respondent must have access to interview transcripts - Materials shown to interviewees must also be numbered as exhibits and referred by exhibit number during the interview and included in the institutional record along with the exhibits

Sequestration

- Final Rule clarifies that 1) when original research records cannot be obtained, copies of records that are “substantially equivalent in evidentiary value” will fulfill the sequestration requirement and 2) subsequent or interim sequestration should occur whenever new records become known

Finality of Institutional Decisions

Final Rule clarifies that institutional determinations are final

Multiple Respondents

- Final Rule adds clarification that new inquiries are not necessary if new respondents are added to a proceeding

Multiple Institutions

-

Final Rule adds guidelines for multi-institutional proceedings NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

5

SCOPE OF CHANGES UNDER THE INTERIM FINAL RULE New ECCNs and revisions on quantum computing, semiconductors, additive manufacturing, and GAAFET

Quantum/Semiconductor ECCNs: 3A901, 3A904, 3B903, 3B904, 3C907, 3C908, 3C909, 4A906. 3E901, 4E906, 3D901, 3D907 & 4D906 Additive Manufacturing ECCNs: 2B910, 2E903, 2E910 & 2D910 GAAFET ECCNs: 3A001, 3B001, 3C001, 3E905, 3D001, 3D002 & 4D001

New License Exception, Implemented Export Controls (IEC)

Implemented Export Controls (IEC). This license exception IEC authorized specific exported to Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, and the UK for these technologies, the requirements for the license exception will vary by the item and destination country.

New General License (GL). This General License has a similar concept to the OFAC General License.

GL General Order No.6 applies to 3E905, 3E901, and certain software under 3D901, this GL allows certain exports, deemed exports, and transfers. 15 CFR Supplement No. 1 to Part 736(f).

Temporary GL General Order No. 4. Allows the support of ongoing collaboration activities for certain quantum, semiconductor, additive manufacturing, and GAAFET exports and deemed exports for specific end-users and destinations this will expire on December 31st, 2025. 15 CFR Supplement No. 1 to Part 736(d).

New Worldwide Control. BIS maintains a Country Chart that outlines the reason for control that apply to specific countries.

Worldwide Control reason won’t be listed on the country chart like other controls (i.e., NS -National Security, AT-Anti-terrorism, RS-Regional Stability, MT-Missile Technology, etc.), rather it will be referenced under NS [15 CFR §742.4(a)(5) and (b)(10)] and RS [15 CFR §742.6(a)(10) and (b)(11)], which describe the additional new licensing requirements and policies.

Additional Controls on Specific Technologies The Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) authorized BIS to establish appropriate controls on critical and emerging technologies for national security reasons. Many of the technologies referenced in the new rule were technologies that BIS has been monitoring for some years. The ECRA Policy also states that the most effective controls are multilateral, under the new rule “BIS seeks to achieve these objectives by harmonizing controls with like-minded countries” as stated by Alan Estevez, Under Secretary for the Bureau of Industry and Security in a press release of September 4, 2024. While some of these technologies were already controlled as dual use under BIS Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the IFR modified some existing controls on certain technologies and added new controls for other technologies.

Action Items Although the rule took effect immediately, BIS is seeking public comment on the deemed export requirements associated with quantum and the GL, IEC framework, scope, and clarity of the new ECCNs, and licensing procedures, all public comments to BIS must be submitted by November 4, 2024. At Northeastern University, we are taking the following steps to help identify research that may be subject to these controls: • Understand the university research portfolio and the scope of the new and modified ECCNs, and the use of license exception IEC, and General License.

• Identify research labs, departments, and colleges with scopes of research that may be affected by IFR. • Developing outreach for faculty who have research in quantum computing, semiconductor-related technology, GAAFET technology, and additive manufacturing technology.

• Work with your Sponsored Program office to flag proposals and awards that include these types of technologies. N

BIS Administration of Export Controls These controls are administered through the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). All dual-use items, including tangible items, technology & software that have both commercial and military applications, are listed under the EAR Commerce Control List (CCL), and identified by an export control classification number (ECCN). The ECCN describes the parameters for which an item is subject to dual-use controls, the reason for the controls, and potential license exceptions if available.

Applicability to Academic Researchers Universities engaged in quantum computing research, semiconductorrelated technology, GAAFET technology, and additive manufacturing technology are at higher risk of a deemed export of technology if a non-U.S. person (i.e., F1 foreign student, J1 visiting scholar) is participating in research linked to these technologies. Other concerns center around the prospect that an actual export that can occur with international collaboration and foreign-sponsored research.

6

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

Lissette Gilster is an Export Control Officer at Northeastern University. Lissette has been with Northeastern since 2021, she is responsible for developing and implementing the export compliance program. Lissette has a BA in marketing and international business and has 13 years of experience in the export compliance field, the last 10 years have been in export compliance for higher education.

She can be reached at l.gilster@northeastern.edu.

Tessa Seales is a Research Security and Forensic Analyst at Northeastern University. Tessa has a master’s in criminology from the University of Pennsylvania and comes from a law enforcement background. Tessa has been with Northeastern since December 2021 and works in the areas of research security, export controls, and research integrity and misconduct. She can be reached at t.seales@ northeastern.edu.

Board Update The board came together in mid-October in New York City. It was a wonderful opportunity to hold the board meeting at the New York Hilton Midtown, where we will be holding our Annual Meeting in 2026!

Many thanks to the NCURA staff for their exceptional organization of the meeting.

The board meeting was structured in two parts. On day one, we had a facilitated strategic discussion.

It was particularly helpful to have with us the same facilitator who had met with the board in early 2023.

This strategic discussion provided an opportunity to reflect on progression of the strategic plan, to consider where refinement or updates were needed and to collectively plan on the future implementation of the strategy.

The second day focussed on the board papers and discussion. Key outcomes and updates included: ■ 2025 Financial Research Administration (FRA) and Pre-Award Administration (PRA)

conferences: these will take place in San Diego, March 17-21, 2025. The conference programs and hotel information were announced in mid-November, so do take a look.

■ Uniform Guidance: a pre-order sale for the soon to be newest edition desk reference was

recently announced, with over 100 orders received by the end of the first week. Many thanks for all those involved in the updates.

■ Orientation for NCURA’s incoming Board: this will take place online in early December.

This orientation is important to continue our focus on good governance.

■ Apprentice membership: discussion and support for this new membership was agreed by the

board. Note – following the board meeting NCURA launched the Apprenticeship membership.

The membership type is welcomed to all who are in apprentice programs within their sponsored program research administration offices, providing an excellent opportunity to enhance their knowledge and skills in the profession.

■ Select Committee on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: a webinar, communications, and

outreach plan were endorsed.

■ Committee nominations: a number of committees put forward nominations for committees

which were reviewed and actioned by the board.

On a personal note, as I finish my term on the board at the end of 2024, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the members, volunteers and staff for their support and guidance. It has been an exceptional experience to be part of the board, initially as the Region VIII representative, then later as an At-Large member, and more recently as the Vice President, President, and Immediate Past If you have an President. Working in collaboration is such a strength of NCURA, questions, com y m or concerns, plea ents, as is reflecting, learning, being open to new ideas and initiatives se free to reach ou feel and making them happen. The inclusivity, kindness and can-do t any member of to the attitude of people are just some of the many joys of being a part Board of Direct ors or NCURA staff. of NCURA. Wishing you a wonderful 2025.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS President Kris Monahan Providence College Vice President Denise Moody Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation Immediate Past President Bryony Wakefield King's College London Treasurer Timothy Schailey Thomas Jefferson University Secretary Diane Hillebrand University of North Dakota Executive Director Kathleen M. Larmett National Council of University Research Administrators Eva Björndal King’s College London Emily Devereux University of South Carolina Mary Louise Healy Johns Hopkins University Melanie Hebl University of Wisconsin-Madison Derick Jones Onyx Clinical Research Group Laura Kingsley University of Pittsburgh Nancy Lewis University of California-Irvine Nicole Nichols Washington University in St. Louis Geraldine Pierre Boston Children’s Hospital Lori Ann Schultz University of Texas at San Antonio David Smelser University of Tennessee Thomas Spencer University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Dr. Bryony Wakefield is the Immediate Past President of NCURA and serves as Director, Research Management & Innovation at King’s College London. She can be reached at bryony.wakefield@kcl.ac.uk

Ashley Stahle Colorado State University Lisa Wottrich SRI International Susan Zipkin University of New Hampshire

8

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

EMPOWERING TEAMS to Stay Ahead in Research Administration

I

By Crystal James

n the fast-paced world of research administration, staying up to date on changes is crucial for effective grant management. As regulations shift, technology advances, and sponsor guidelines are updated, it is vital for leaders to prioritize the training and development of their teams to stay ahead of these changes. Doing so ensures that their teams are not only equipped to meet current demands, but are also staying in the loop on critical updates impacting their work. By fostering a culture of continuous learning and collaboration, leaders can empower their teams to proactively tackle emerging challenges, remain updated on policies, and seamlessly adapt to changes they encounter.

When team members have the training and tools they need, they are better prepared to manage their workloads, tackle issues, and respond to challenges. Without adequate preparation, teams can struggle to maintain compliance, which can put the institution at risk. Staying current in the field of research administration requires intentional leadership and thoughtful investment in ongoing training. Strong teams are built over time, through formal training, hands-on experience, and professional development. Leaders who emphasize these areas will see their teams grow more confident, proactive, and well-equipped to stay ahead in research administration.

The Importance of Continuous Training In research administration, change is constant. Without ongoing training, even experienced administrators may find themselves behind if they do not seek continuous training and development. Training should be seen as more than just professional development, but rather a strategic investment for your team. Leaders must recognize that training is not optional but necessary. It is essential for maintaining award compliance and supporting the institution’s research portfolio. Whether it involves adapting to new federal guidelines, understanding advances in grant management resources, or staying informed about policy changes, regular training provides teams with the knowledge and skills needed to navigate the challenges that arise in their work.

Empowering Teams Through Knowledge Sharing While continuous training is crucial, leaders should also encourage a culture of knowledge sharing across their teams. This approach fosters resilience, as team members learn from each other’s experiences, insights, and best practices. Knowledge sharing can take various forms, from informal discussions during team meetings to structured mentorship opportunities. Leaders should create opportunities for staff to exchange NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

9

information on new regulations, sponsor updates, and institutional policies. For example, incorporating professional development discussions into regular team meetings can ensure that all team members stay informed about changes that may affect their work. Senior staff can also mentor newer administrators, providing guidance on complex research administration tasks and policies. This not only strengthens the team’s knowledge base but also builds a sense of camaraderie and mutual support. Creating an environment where knowledge is freely shared across your team empowers teams to learn from one another’s successes and challenges, fostering adaptability and unity in navigating change.

Leveraging Peer Learning Another effective strategy for building strong research administration teams is encouraging peer learning and participation in development opportunities outside of your institution. Research administrators can benefit greatly from learning from their peers, as they often face similar challenges and can offer valuable insights and solutions. Leaders should actively promote their team participation in research administration conferences and training events. Conferences offer the opportunity to learn about emerging changes, discover new tools and technologies, and engage in discussions on best practices. These events also provide invaluable networking opportunities, enabling team members to connect with research administration experts from other institutions and directly with sponsors. By supporting staff attendance at conferences and other professional development opportunities, leaders can ensure that their teams remain informed on the latest updates and policies while building a network of resources that they can tap into in the future.

The Importance of Cross-Departmental Collaboration In addition to training and knowledge sharing, cross-departmental collaboration within your institution is critical to building resilient teams.

Research administration teams often collaborate closely with other departments, such as compliance, finance, and legal, to ensure that research management aligns with the institution’s goals and policies.

Leaders should encourage their teams to develop strong working relationships with these departments, as cross-functional collaboration is critical to addressing complex challenges and successfully managing research funds. For example, collaborating and meeting regularly across your 10

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

institution can help ensure that grant budgets are managed effectively and can also help teams stay informed on updates and changes. In addition, strong cross-departmental relationships allow research administrators the opportunity to expand their resources and network across campus.

Encouraging cross-departmental collaboration can help team members address complex challenges, and expand their internal network of resources, fostering a more comprehensive approach to problem-solving.

Collaboration goes beyond institutional departments and should also encompass building strong relationships with principal investigators (PIs) and research collaborators. By understanding PIs’ needs, research administrators can provide more effective support. Regular check-in meetings with PIs are a great way to stay informed about anticipated updates, as PIs often gain valuable insights from their Program Officers or professional networks regarding upcoming changes from sponsors. Nurturing strong relationships with PIs is crucial for the success of research projects and helps ensure the proactive management of research funds.

Empowering Teams for the Future As leaders in research administration, your team is your greatest asset. By investing in their training and development, you empower them to thrive, resulting in a more capable and knowledgeable workforce. Fostering a culture of continuous learning, encouraging knowledge sharing, and promoting collaboration ensures your team is equipped to handle any challenges that come their way.

Leaders who implement these strategies will be well-positioned to guide their teams, support their institutions, and drive successful outcomes.

Building resilient research administration teams hinges on fostering an environment where team members feel supported, empowered, and ready to tackle the complexities of the field. Investing in your team today not only benefits them directly but can also positively impact your entire organization. N Crystal James is the Sr. Finance and Grants Manager for the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) at the Medical School of Wisconsin where she oversees the center’s grants and finance operations. She currently serves as the Chair of the Region IV PDC Committee and can be reached at crjames@mcw.edu.

Higher education expertise.

Research administration excellence.

Streamline research administration operations with the right strategy and tools for the research enterprise, including emerging technologies such as AI. • Enhance award and portfolio oversight • Improve training and education • Leverage cloud solutions • Navigate subaward complexities • Manage immediate and long-term staffing needs • Lead your enterprise through change Explore what’s possible with Huron.

Visit: huronconsultinggroup.com/expertise/research-enterprise

© 2024 Huron Consulting Group Inc. and affiliates.

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

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

Evolving Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulatory Framework: US and EU Perspectives – NCURA 2nd AI Summit, Plenary Session

By David Richardson and Ara Tahmassian

O

n August 5-6, 2023, NCURA held its first Artificial Intelligence (AI) Summit during AM65. AI had just come to the public’s attention with the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022.

During that summit, presenters focused on what AI is and how it may be used in or impact the research enterprise generally and research administration more specifically.

The second AI Symposium was held on June 24, 2024, in Old Town Alexandria, by which time AI had become ubiquitous and incorporated in almost every major common suite of applications such as Co-Pilot, Microsoft Edge, Google Gemini and the AI Search, etc. During the summit we heard directly from our colleagues on how they are using or have incorporated AI in their daily operations as well as their initiatives currently under way for streamlining the administrative process, improving accuracy and efficiency, and reducing burdens on researchers and administrators amongst many of their uses.

The opening plenary session was a discussion on the evolving AI regulatory framework with two distinguished panelists: Dr. Florent Bernard,

counsellor for research and innovation in delegation of the European Union to the United States, and Dr. Dr. Marcia McNutt, the president of the National Academy of Sciences and a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine.

European Union Perspective Dr. Bernard opened the session with a brief presentation on the transformative impact of AI on scientific research outlining several key areas and strategies for effectively integrating AI into the scientific process. He acknowledged that while AI can significantly expand scientific boundaries, accelerate discovery, and democratize science, it also raises ethical issues and challenges related to public trust, data resources, and infrastructure.

To address these concerns, he emphasized the need for tailored policies to address the challenges, including enhancing talent and education systems, fostering interdisciplinarity, and ensuring robust governance. He also highlighted the European Union’s (EU) role and value by aligning initiatives across member states, reaching larger populations of stakeholders, and influencing international practices.

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

13

Dr. Bernard discussed The EU Artificial Intelligence Act designed for the responsible use of generative AI in research. The act uses a product safety and risk-based approach for addressing health, safety, fundamental rights, and ethical issues related to the use of AI in a manner that is “innovation friendly” to ensure that AI’s full capacity is used in a responsible manner. While the act is designed to facilitate the use of AI, it does prohibit certain activities such as subliminal message to manipulate the public; use of biometric categorization for purpose of deducing race, political opinions; predicting risk of a person to commit a crime solely based on AI profiling; untargeted scraping of internet for facial image to build or expand databases.

United States Perspective Dr. McNutt started her presentation by focusing on the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scientific contexts, highlighting several successful applications of AI in underwater and outer space research as well its potential to revolutionize almost every field of science and technology by analyzing large data sets for trends or markers helping researchers to focus on those findings.

She discussed concerns related to the potential challenges AI present to the norms of science, such as transparency, accountability, replicability, and human responsibility. To protect scientific integrity, she offered some suggestions including: • Transparency and disclosures regarding the use of AI in research, including the information such as data and images used in publication, as well as use of AI in generating the publications.

• Holding the authors accountable for use or misuse of AI. • Independent verification of results and research findings generated

by AI. • Attribution of sources by model creators for public’s understanding of what data was used to “train” the model.

• Principles that emphasize equity and ethics in the use of AI. • Continuous monitoring of AI practices.

The United States has not yet established a comprehensive federal regulatory framework specifically for AI and is taking a more market-driven approach.

In her presentation, Dr. McNutt also discussed the financial barriers universities face in AI research due to the focus of industry in AI research and its dominance in recruiting AI talent. It is estimated that industry performs 75% of R&D but contributes to only 6% of publications, focusing on profitable, scalable, and reproducible science. While the research conducted by industry often stems from ground-breaking basic research from academic settings it does not prioritize publication.

To strengthen academic AI, she suggested building partnerships between universities and industry, which facilitates the exchange of faculty 14

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

and students between the two sectors; encouraging industry funding for student support; and directing university research efforts towards areas outside of industry interests while emphasizing the core scientific values of reproducibility and scalability.

Discussion Both the United States and the European Union recognize the importance of AI and its potential to help address scientific and societal challenges.

Dr. Bernard pointed out that this importance is highlighted in a 2023 report (OECD, 2023) by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which states, “Accelerating the productivity of research could be the most economically and socially valuable of all the uses of artificial intelligence.”

The same report also addresses several challenges such as blurring the concepts of authorship and ownership, potential for use of AI in spreading misinformation, the possible inequities between developed and developing countries, etc., and the importance of “governance models.”

While both the United States and the European Union also recognize the potential challenges posed by AI, their approach to the regulation of AI reflects distinct approaches and priorities, shaped by different regulatory philosophies, legal frameworks, and socio-political contexts.

The United States has not yet established a comprehensive federal regulatory framework specifically for AI and is taking a more market-driven approach, while the European Union has adopted a more precautionary and human-centric approach to its regulation (European Commission, 2024) by enacting the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. This seems to follow the general approach to the regulatory framework where the European Union aims for preemptive regulation to prevent harm, while the United States tends to address issues more reactively, focusing on guidelines and recommendations rather than binding regulations.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to Dr. Marcie McNutt, Dr. Florent Bernard, and Kathleen Larmett, NCURA executive director, for their contributions to the success of a very exciting summit and for their review and comments on the article. N References OECD. (2023, June 26). Artificial Intelligence in Science: Challenges, Opportunities and the Future of Research. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/artificial-intelligence-in-science_a8d820bd-en.html European Commission. (2024, August 08). AI Act: Shaping Europe’s digital future. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai European Commission. (2024, March 20). Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Science. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/industrial-research-and-innovation/artificial-intelligence-ai-science_en#:~:text=AI%27s%20role%20in%20 science&text=EU%2Dfunded%20researchers%20are%20already,and%20improving%20 earthquake%27s%20impact%20predictions

Ara Tahmassian, PhD, Chief Research Compliance Officer at Harvard University, is responsible for research compliance activities across the university. He is also the Project Director of the Boarder Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) Bioethics Forum. He can be reached at ara_tahmassian@harvard.edu.

David Richardson, Executive Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, manages the Sponsored Programs Administration, which supports the research enterprise throughout the entire lifecycle of an externally sponsored project, from proposal submission to award close-out. He can be reached at daverich@illinois.edu.

Strengthen your team’s skills and connections.

Join us in San Diego, CA! Shared Workshop Day March 19, 2025 Financial Research Administration Conference

Pre-Award Research Administration Conference

March 17-18, 2025

March 20-21, 2025

Navigating Waves of Innovation

Charting New Horizons

Registration open!

Register today at www.ncura.edu

2024 UNIFORM GUIDANCE DESK REFERENCE Have the latest regulations at your fingertips.

Bulk Pricing Available.

Order Yours!

Competitive Intelligence as a Mechanism to Inform Institutional Research Decision-Making

By Hansa Magee and Sarah Polasky

I

nstitutional policies, practices, and procedures are informed by many different sources, such as insights drawn from federal funding patterns.

Many unpredictable factors contribute to federal funding for research and development. Elected leaders push forward their priorities as our federal administration changes. National security threats can be tracked but are still difficult to predict with certainty. Some institutions have federal relations teams and liaisons that try to predict what bills are

passed in Congress, lobby for research priorities, or connect researchers with program officers. Realistically, not all institutions have individuals in these positions, which places them at a disadvantage. An institution-level Competitive Intelligence (CI) function could mitigate this disadvantage by using publicly available resources to develop federal funding strategies and recommend actionable institutional behaviors. These recommendations can inform decision-making at the institutional level and be informa-

Figure 1. CI process at MU

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

17

tive for departmental units within the university. In this article, we discuss the three key steps that the CI function at University of Missouri, Columbia (MU) has fine-tuned to inform research decisions.

The CI analysis typically starts with an inquiry or directive from leadership to analyze federal administration priorities, funding agency priorities, or a specific solicitation’s details and history. While non-federal requests occur (e.g., MacArthur Foundation grants), the most common CI analyses are upcoming fiscal year priorities as released by the White House, newly released federal agency programs, updated releases of recurrent federal agency programs, and ongoing updates to Congressional bills that may significantly impact universities. As with every analytical deliverable, there is a set of intake information that needs to be gathered, such as: Who is the audience for this analysis? What is the deadline? Is a one pager appropriate or is a detailed analysis necessary? Above all, a CI professional must be able to state in one sentence the requester’s expected purpose for the deliverable to demonstrate full understanding of the request. In other words, what is the big picture question being answered?

After intake, the CI process starts with an evaluation of available data sources. These could be public websites, previously awarded projects, analyses by nonprofits, institutional data, etc. (figure 1). These qualitative and quantitative information sources must be assessed, which is often the most time-consuming part of the process. Not all of it will be relevant to answer the questions asked and some sources provide conflicting or missing relevant information – this could be due to timing, differences in definitions, or formatting of data available for download. In the case of federal budget and agency priorities, it is often most useful to first read analyses by experts. For example, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Institute of Physics, and National Science Foundation (NSF) National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics are organizations that employ analysts skilled at data analyses and federal budget summation. Identifying the appropriate resources that pertain to your specific deliverable then becomes the job of the CI professional. What is relevant to your institution’s size, geographic location (e.g., Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research area), or research goals?

Analysis, the second step of the CI process, depends on the analyst’s skills and preferences. Some analyze data, write text, and format in R Markdown. Others create figures in Excel and copy and paste into Word to create PDFs. And others create Tableau or Power BI dashboards with embedded text. Without knowing the skills and preferences of the reader, here are three things to consider.

1) Know your audience: Are they likely to print and mark all over with pen? Then create a PDF. 2) Trend vs snapshot information: Is change over time a key part of the analysis? Make a list of the figures needed and think of the best way to present these.

3) Time: Is it likely that this analysis will need to be edited/updated in the future? How much time is available to finish the analysis? How easily can it be reproduced?

The last and most important part of the analysis is the interpretation of the information summarized. This is the difference between a summary document and an analysis. Sometimes the CI professional may only be asked for a summary, so interpretation may not be necessary. This is why the requester’s expected deliverable should be clear from the beginning.

In the interpretation section, realistic and actionable insights should be outlined with the understanding of the institution’s research ecosystem.

18

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

“Above all, a CI professional must be able to state in one sentence the requester’s expected purpose for the deliverable to demonstrate full understanding of the request.”

For example, plans to win an NSF Engine may not be appropriate for an Emerging Research Institution. Faculty growth may not be feasible if student enrollment is decreasing. There is value in connecting with other colleagues across campus as the CI function builds institutional knowledge to inform interpretation and application.

In closing, collecting data, analysis, and interpretation are the three key steps to completing a CI deliverable. Using these products to inform research questions and affect university business decisions often lies within the duties of senior leadership. Leadership must be able to easily review, interpret, and apply the products created by CI to act on it successfully. A robust, dependable, and timely CI function works hand in hand with these leaders. N RESOURCES Introduction to Federal Budget Process • NSF NCSES https://ncses.nsf.gov/data-collections/federal-budget-function/2022-2024 • CRS https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46240 • CBPP https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-introduction-to-the-federal-budget-process

Federal Budget Analyses • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) https://www.aaas.org/focus-areas/federal-science-budget-analysis • American Institute of Physics (AIP) https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/budget-tracker • Congressional Budget Office https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget/long-term-budget-analysis

Competitive Intelligence in Universities Higher ed listserv managed by Arizona State University https://funding.asu.edu/proposal-development/competitive-intelligence

Dr. Hansa Magee is the Director of Research Analytics within the Division of Research, Innovation and Impact at the University of Missouri (MU). Her team provides research and sponsored project reporting, competitive intelligence, and completes the NSF HERD survey. She can be reached at hansa.magee@missouri.edu.

Dr. Sarah Polasky is the Director of the Strategic Proposal Development Service within the Division of Research, Innovation and Impact at the University of Missouri. CI regularly informs her team’s support of large-scale, complex, and institutionally important grant proposals.

She can be reached at polaskys@missouri.edu.

INCLUSION INITIATIVES

Beyond the Horizon, A Bright Future:

ADVANCING DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND, INCLUSION IN NCURA AND RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION

By Tanya Blackwell

N

CURA’s Select Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (SCDEI) is committed to creating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment where all research administrators feel they can grow professionally and contribute meaningfully, to the organization and the profession. Starting out as a Taskforce, the SCDEI has continued to take shape while preparing NCURA members for the evolving landscape of DEI. This year has been transformative for the SCDEI as we pursued several initiatives to foster inclusivity and equity in research administration and NCURA. Our efforts focused on creating impactful conversations, developing organizational structures, and ensuring that underrepresented voices are heard and valued. It is essential to not only reflect on our accomplishments but also to consider what lies ahead and how we can further advance DEI within NCURA. 2024 Accomplishments: A Year of Progress This year, the SCDEI organized and hosted six webinars that covered a wide range of DEI-related topics. These webinars were tailored to address issues that impact research administrators, especially those from underrepresented and marginalized backgrounds. Here is a brief overview of the webinars: 1. Empowering Change: Confronting Racism to Reshape Social Health Determinants This webinar addressed how racism impacts social determinants of health and provided tools for combating structural inequalities in research environments.

2. The Roots of Route 66: A Journey of Resilience and Progress In this session, Candacy Taylor highlighted the history of Route 66 and how the resilience and progress of underrepresented communities on this historic road parallels the experiences of minorities in research administration.

3. Linguistic Imperialism: There’s No Such Thing as Broken English Sunn M’Cheaux led a thought-provoking discussion on linguistic justice and the importance of embracing language diversity in

20

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

professional environments, challenging the biases that disadvantage non-standard English speakers.

4. What’s Age Got to Do with It?: Ageism in the Workplace Dr. Patricia Fletcher presented on the challenges of ageism and shared strategies for fostering an age-inclusive workplace, focusing on the strengths that a multigenerational workforce brings to research institutions.

5. Accessibility in Research Administration: Enhancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility This session emphasized the importance of creating accessible research environments, particularly for individuals with disabilities, and provided strategies for research administrators to challenge ableism and implement inclusive practices.

6. The Efficacy of Equity Assessment in Advancing DEIA This webinar explored how equity assessment can be used as a tool to evaluate and improve DEI initiatives within research administration and higher education institutions.

Additionally, we hosted Candacy Taylor, author of Overground Railroad, at the 66th Annual Meeting (AM66), where she participated in a book signing and concurrent session. Her, standing room only, session on Route 66 provided insights into how the experiences of underrepresented individuals navigating historic and modern highways can inform and inspire our work in dismantling barriers in research administration.

A significant accomplishment this year was the creation and approval of the NCURA SCDEI Guiding Principles. These guiding principles outline our commitment to promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion across all NCURA activities. They ensure that our organization operates with integrity, excellence, and transparency, while also fostering a culture that values collaboration. These principles are now embedded in our organizational framework and will guide our future actions.

Another key initiative was the development of a marketing plan to expand our DEI webinar series to reach underrepresented minorities, particularly at institutions that may not have NCURA memberships. Given to the SCDEI as a Presidential Charge, this plan includes targeted messaging to minority-serving institutions (MSIs), historically black colleges and

universities (HBCUs), and other underrepresented groups in research administration. By increasing outreach to these institutions, we hope to foster greater engagement and representation within NCURA. In response to current events and their impact on NCURA membership, we worked with the Board to recommend the development of a rubric to assess when NCURA leadership should make public statements or take a stance on matters impacting our membership. This initiative allows for a thoughtful and consistent approach to addressing issues that affect our community and ensure that our members feel heard, seen, valued, and included. This year’s social and political climate, including multiple wars and the disbanding of DEI offices and programs throughout our nation has influenced this need for such an audacious initiative.

Finally, we implemented a blind review process for the selection of next year’s committee members. This process removed biases from the selection process and served as an example of how NCURA can adopt strategies to promote fairness and inclusivity across all levels of leadership selection. Moving forward, we plan to advocate for broader implementation of this process across the organization.

Looking Toward the Horizon: What’s Next for SCDEI As we look to the future, we are committed to continuing our efforts to advance DEI within research administration. Several key initiatives are on the horizon: 1. Collaboration with Regional Leadership We plan to strengthen our partnership with NCURA’s Regional Leadership to create a more cohesive approach to DEI efforts. By working together, we can ensure that our initiatives reach a broader audience and have a lasting impact across all regions. Furthering our value of collegiality, the goal of this collaboration is for us to learn from and grow with one another.

2. Increasing Representation in Leadership One of our primary goals is to increase the representation of underrepresented minorities in NCURA leadership positions. We will work closely with HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions to recruit and engage individuals from underrepresented backgrounds. By fostering these connections, we hope to create a pipeline of diverse talent that will shape the future of research administration through leadership and service.

3. Expanding the DEI Webinar Series We plan to continue expanding our DEI webinar series to address critical and emerging issues. Future webinars will include topics that are often avoided in professional settings but are crucial for promoting true inclusivity. We aim to bring in experts to lead discussions on these challenging topics and provide our membership with the tools they need to address DEI issues within their institutions.

4. Strengthening Organizational Commitment to DEI We will continue to collaborate with the Board and other committees to ensure that DEI principles are embedded in every aspect of NCURA. This includes reviewing organizational policies, procedures, and programs to identify barriers to diversity and opportunities to increase inclusion. We are committed to addressing any inequities in our practices and ensuring that NCURA upholds its commitment to DEI. 5. Creating a DEI Award To recognize individuals who have made significant contributions to advancing DEI within research administration, we propose the creation of a DEI Award. This award will honor individuals who have

demonstrated a strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion and have made meaningful contributions to creating a more inclusive profession. We believe that recognizing these efforts is essential to reinforcing the importance of DEI within NCURA. A Standing Committee for Lasting Change As we look to the future, one of our primary goals is to transition the SCDEI from a select committee to a standing committee within NCURA. This shift follows the example set by Regions VI and II, who have made DEI a permanent part of their organizational structures by establishing standing DEI committees. We believe that NCURA must also take this step if it is to truly uphold its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

While the work of this select committee has been instrumental in driving change, its temporary nature can unintentionally convey that DEI work is short-term or secondary. In contrast, we know that fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion is ongoing work that requires continuous attention, resources, and organizational commitment. By creating a standing DEI committee, NCURA will send a clear message that DEI is not just a current priority but a core value that will remain integral to the organization for years to come.

A standing committee would ensure that DEI principles are consistently woven into the fabric of every decision and initiative within NCURA. It would also provide the necessary infrastructure to address the ever-evolving challenges in our profession, helping us dismantle systemic barriers while building a more inclusive and equitable organization. This is the next logical step for NCURA as we work toward creating a lasting impact and setting the standard for DEI in research administration.

Conclusion The SCDEI has made significant strides this year in advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within NCURA and the broader research administration profession. From organizing impactful webinars to implementing a blind review process and collaborating on policy recommendations, our efforts have laid the groundwork for lasting change.

However, as we look toward the horizon, it is clear that the work of diversity, equity, and inclusion is ongoing and essential. We cannot allow these efforts to be viewed as temporary or secondary. That is why we are committed to transitioning from a select committee to a standing committee, ensuring that DEI remains a permanent fixture within NCURA. This step would solidify NCURA’s commitment to fostering an inclusive environment that reflects the values of equity and diversity in all its operations.

By making the SCDEI a standing committee, we can ensure that DEI principles are not only maintained but continuously advanced. This permanent commitment to DEI would enable NCURA to better serve its diverse membership, identify and address systemic barriers, and build a more inclusive future for the research administration profession. Together, we can look beyond the horizon and prepare for the “next big thing” in research administration—one that prioritizes DEI and empowers all members to thrive. N Tanya Blackwell, MS, is a Grants and Contracts Supervisor at Seattle Children’s Research Institute (SCRI), where she leverages her departmental and central office pre- and post-award experience to serve SCRI’s most important population: children! She serves as the Chair of NCURA’s Select Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (SCDEI) and as an elected member of Region VI’s Regional Advisory Committee (RAC). She can be reached at tanya.blackwell@ seattlechildrens.org.

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

21

A View from Washington, DC: What Does the Future Hold

By Deborah Altenberg, Sarah Spreitzer, and Meredith Asbury

I

n the world of government relations, we are all adjusting to the aftermath of the 2024 election and already making plans for working with the next administration and the new 119th Congress. Our associations, as well as our other higher education colleagues, are engaged and ready to hit the ground running. With one political party set to hold the presidency, Senate, and House, we can make a few predictions about what policymakers will be considering in 2025 and beyond.

Administration/Federal Agencies Foreign gifts and contracts: We are certain to see further scrutiny of foreign gifts and contracts, and not just those involving China. In the 118th Congress, members have raised concerns with funding to institutions from Middle Eastern countries that support Hamas, as well as continuing concerns with influence operations from Russia. Expect continuing focus from the administration and Congress on compliance with Section 117, the new National Science Foundation Foreign Financial Disclosure Report, and requirements to disclose foreign support on grant applications across the federal research agencies. Just this fall, the House of Representatives passed legislation to create new foreign gift and contract reporting requirements and restrictions on funding from the Department of Homeland Security (American Council on Education, 2024). While the Senate has taken no action, proposals for agency-specific funding restrictions could proliferate in the next Congress. Expect research security to also involve more parts of campus, including advancement and senior international officers, as foreign gift reporting and new research security requirements (i.e. new travel policies, new reporting requirements, etc.) are expanded across campuses.

22

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

Implementation of NSPM-33: NSPM-33, which originated under the first Trump administration, is the overarching research security policy from which federal agencies continue to operate. Earlier this year, the Biden Administration’s White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released guidance to federal agencies regarding common disclosure forms, foreign talent programs, and required research security plans for institutions of higher education with over $50 million in federal science and engineering funding (Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2024). Federal agencies are slowly implementing these NSPM-33 requirements and final plans are not expected until sometime in 2025. The OSTP guidance has given significant implementation discretion to the agencies, and we will be watching and advocating for as much alignment across the agencies as possible. Because no agency has finalized implementation plans, there will be an opportunity for the incoming Trump administration to revisit these plans.

Public access policies: In 2022, the Biden administration issued a memorandum that requires federal agencies to update their public access policies no later than December 31, 2025, to “make publications and their supporting data resulting from federally funded research publicly accessible without an embargo on their free and public release.” The agencies have been working through the public comment process and are on track to meet this deadline. However, given the 2025 implementation date, the incoming Trump administration will have the opportunity to revisit the memorandum and the zero-day embargo. Congress may also weigh in more strongly. The House of Representatives has proposed restricting the policy through its proposed FY 2025 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

Regulations: Although the Republican party will now control the Senate and retain control of the House, the margins for the majority remain very close. This could continue to make it difficult for Congress to move individual bills through regular order. Therefore, as we have seen with the last several administrations, there will be attempts to enact regulations at the agencies through executive actions. But the next administration may face more challenges to executive authority, as we will also be watching to see how the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and its impact on the Chevron doctrine play out. The June 2024 decision, which overturned a long-standing deference to the agencies and executive branch, may impact future regulatory action and the ability of federal agencies to promulgate regulations around subjects that Congress has not explicitly put into statute (Walsh, 2024).

Congress Research security: Given the narrow margins, we are unlikely to see large pieces of legislation, like another CHIPS and Science Act or large immigration reform, that rely on broad bipartisan support. Must-pass, annual pieces of legislation, such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and appropriations bills, will continue to be used as vehicles to move seemingly unrelated legislation and policy riders, such as new research security measures. Look no further than the ongoing negotiations over the FY 2025 NDAA, during which both the House and the Senate have proposed new restrictions (Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities and Association of American Universities, 2024). The NDAA is expected to pass before Congress adjourns this month.

The House of Representatives will likely renew the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and concerns about research, education, and cultural interactions with “countries of concern,” especially China, will continue to be a bipartisan, bicameral concern in the next Congress.

In addition, expect continuing concerns from Congress about the value and costs of college, calls for more transparency on spending and donations, and questions about institutional operations, especially around campus protests. While that will not directly impact research administrators, the overall political environment will make it more difficult to find champions within Congress to advocate for and defend institutions of higher education.

Appropriations: Congress again this year could not reach any agreement on appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year. In late September, Congress passed a continuing resolution that will last until Dec. 20, 2024.

We are still waiting to see if Congress will complete the FY 2025 bills or punt funding decisions into the 119th Congress. However, we already know that given the financial restraints of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA), Congress and the administration have little room to meet the ambitious goals set forth in the CHIPS and Science Act. For example, the National Science Foundation, which would receive a funding increase compared to this year in both the proposed House and Senate FY 2025 funding bills, would still not reach its FY 2023 funding level. Republican Congressional leaders are already talking about using the budget reconciliation process next year to fast-track new tax cuts, which could further restrict domestic discretionary funding and make it difficult to grow funding for federal research agencies.

NIH reform: In the last year and a half, we have seen several congressional requests for information regarding the future of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Two of these requests sought comments about the future of facilities and administrative (F&A) costs and the possibility of further caps. The House of Representatives went further in its FY 2025 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies appropriations bill by proposing a significant consolidation of institutes

and centers within the NIH and a new 30 percent F&A cap on a total award amount for certain universities subject to the endowment tax. While the Senate did not consider any similar legislation, the focus on the NIH and F&A is unlikely to dissipate. A concerted effort to educate members of Congress and their staff on the purpose and use of F&A cost reimbursements is needed, especially as federal compliance costs for campuses continue to grow.

AI legislation: To end on a positive note, there is growing interest in both the House and the Senate in artificial intelligence (AI). In May, a bipartisan Senate task force led by Majority Leader Schumer (D-NY) along with Sen. Heinrich (D-NM), Sen. Young (R-IN), and Sen. Rounds (D-SD), unveiled a 30-page road map that calls for $32 billion for non-defense AI innovations across multiple federal agencies (United States Senate Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group, 2024). In September, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee passed nine bills to support the advancement of AI technologies at several federal agencies. And in his first administration, President Trump signed an executive order calling for the doubling of AI research funding. We can expect AI to continue to be a focus of both the next administration and Congress.

Regardless of which party wins control of the House and Senate and which candidate wins the White House, our jobs—to advocate for the interests of our member colleges and universities—remain the same, and we will continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to support U.S. leadership in science, technology, and innovation. N References American Council on Education. 2024. Position Letter. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/ Letter-House-China-Legislation-090924.pdf Office of Science and Technology Policy. 2024. Memoradum. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2024/07/OSTP-RSP-Guidelines-Memo.pdf Walsh, M. (2024, July 24). Not Just Title IX: How the Chevron Decision Could Affect Education Regulations. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/not-justtitle-ix-how-the-chevron-decision-could-affect-education-regulations/2024/07 Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities and Association of American Universities.

2024. NDDA Conference Letter FY25. https://www.aplu.org/wp-content/uploads/FY25-APLU-AAU-NDAA-Conference-Letter.pdf United States Senate Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group. 2024. Driving US Innovation in Artificial Intelligence, A Roadmap for Artificial Intelligence Policy in the United States Senate. https://www.schumer.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Roadmap_Electronic1.32pm.pdf

Deborah Altenburg serves as Vice President for Research Policy and Advocacy at the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities.

She is responsible for issues related to federal research policy and funding advocacy. Prior positions include Assistant Vice Chancellor for Federal Relations for The State University of New York and Director of Federal Relations for Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

She can be reached at daltenburg@aplu.org.

Sarah Spreitzer is the Vice President and Chief of Staff of Government Relations at the American Council on Education (ACE). Sarah represents ACE before Congress and the Administration on matters related to research policy, funding, and immigration. She previously held positions at the University of Missouri, Lewis-Burke Associates, and the University of Washington. She has a BA from Beloit College and an MA from the Catholic University of America. She can be reached at saspreitzer@acenet.edu.

Meredith Asbury serves as the Assistant Vice President for Government Relations and Public Policy at the Association of American Universities (AAU). She is responsible for issues related to research security, costs of research, and research integrity. She earned her MPA from George Mason University and BA from The Ohio State University. She can be reached at Meredith.Asbury@aau.edu.

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

23

Research Administration Job Family – Looking Toward the Horizon

By Zoya Davis-Hamilton, Thomas B. Spencer, and Kristina Chavez

F

inding good candidates, matching their skills to roles, and hiring them quickly is a skillset that all research administration teams need. Retaining employees once hired is an additional challenge. In this case study two institutions—Tufts University (Tufts) and University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV)—share their tools and skills for communicating with Human Resources, hiring, and keeping employees in a competitive environment, both within and without formal research administration job families.

Job families are a systematic way to organize related job positions within an organization. Job families are based on similarities of job functions, skill sets, and the nature of the work performed (AIHR). The nature of job families can be highly structured or can be a less formal set of guidelines, for example multiple career ladders may exist in a single job family.

Each career ladder can guide the career progression of individuals as they acquire additional knowledge or education applicable to the field. As the profession of research administration continues to mature, organizations are creating research administration job families to meet the changing needs of our profession.

Tufts Case Study Tufts is a private mid-sized university founded in 1852. With over $247 million in research expenditures in FY23 (National Science Foundation Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) report), Tufts is a member of the Association of American Universities (AAU) and is classified by the Carnegie Institute as an R-1, Doctoral University, Very High Research Activity. Tufts is home to ten schools and colleges with its four campuses spanning the greater Boston, Massachusetts area— Medford/Somerville, downtown Boston, and Grafton.

Tufts established a research administration job family in 2015.

Six position titles are included: Research Administration Coordinator, Research Administrator-I, Research Administrator-II, Senior Research Administrator, Research Administration

24

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

Associate Director, and Research Administration Director. Except for Coordinator, which is an entry level hourly non-exempt position, all positions are exempt. The Associate Director and Director roles have supervisory duties.

In 2019, Tufts further enriched this job family using the Korn Ferry Leadership ArchitectTM framework (Ferry, 2017). This framework includes an assessment tool based on 38 core competencies grouped into several factors. To deploy the model, a team within the organization must first designate a weighted score for each competency, based on the organizational values and vision. To identify the job competencies, staff in research administration roles participated in sessions facilitated by Human Resources (HR).

This project formalized the research administration career ladder, produced profiles for each job title based on competencies, recommended recruitment and talent sourcing strategies, and updated pay ranges for positions within the research administration job family. The responsibilities at the different levels within the job family were clarified, and the various competencies required to successfully perform the role were identified.

An important area of consideration during the development of Tufts research administration job family was the number of seniority levels in the career ladder. It seemed initially that adding more levels for advancement could potentially result in advantages by offering more opportunities for growth and rewarding staff for excellent performance. However, when focus groups made up of existing Tufts research administration staff worked through the competencies required for each level of seniority, no clear and measurable competency differences emerged to justify additional granular levels of seniority. The Tufts community concluded that creating additional career levels risked making promotions through the job ladder more subjective and difficult to align with performance goals. As a result, the job ladder with the above-mentioned six position titles was confirmed and is still in place at Tufts University today.

At Tufts, we have found that the job family has been advantageous in several ways. Having an established

job family brings a common vocabulary, perspective, and consistency of expectations across units. For example, an interview worksheet that uses the competencies in the framework becomes a part of the hiring strategy to evaluate the competency level of prospective employees. Having in place standard job descriptions expedites posting new positions and level sets expectations for research administrators throughout the institution, whether they report centrally or locally to a school or center. Staff can seamlessly apply for positions at the next level of seniority if vacancies open outside of their unit, increasing retention of experienced research administrators. All positions with the same title have the same job code, which allows for easier management of access and credentialing in the university systems. The job family also leads to more effective identification of training needs, as it is easy to know how many staff are at each level across the university.

Implementation of the job family increased the cost of research administration support for some areas of the University. However, it provided the foundation for relative parity of compensation across the organization for the same type of work at the same level of responsibility. Nevertheless, the issue of equitable pay is not easily resolved because budgets within each school determine what amounts within the position pay ranges they are able to afford. Lastly, the fidelity to the job family over time depends heavily on partnership with HR. Tufts University is very decentralized, and schools or centers and individual project directors can post positions if they have available funds. HR must understand the nature of research administration duties, review each position submitted for posting to ensure that research administration duties are not included in the job descriptions for jobs outside of the job family, and if the job duties are similar to research administration duties, enforce the use of the job title within the job family. Those can be difficult conversations to have with the units, and the central administration must be willing to assume ownership of the job family and carry on this type of oversight together with HR. University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Case Study The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley is a new higher education institution that was created by the Texas legislature in 2013 and hosted the first class in the fall of 2015. Created using the resources of two legacy teaching universities, research was not a formal priority until 2020 when research was added to the university mission. In the 2023 NSF HERD report, UTRGV crossed $82.5 million in research expenditures, up from $26.1 million in 2018.

That growth has necessitated human capital investment and in the years that followed, the institution has focused on opportunities to grow its research enterprise, including faculty, students, and research administration staff.

While Tufts relies on programmatic systems, UTRGV relies on the exemplary expertise of HR to meet the same needs. UTRGV’s HR is an excellent partner in providing hiring support, including helping navigate the job market and supporting the Division of Research (DoR) with postings, interviews, and onboarding. As the university expands at a rapid rate, the need for review of existing job descriptions has been identified.

At this point, 39 job descriptions that support research have been established. Some of these are more generic, aligned with the approach Tufts uses, while others are very specific to the duties that will need to be performed. All job titles are part of the same job family, but not all have a career ladder allowing for direct advancement of the employee. Some of these job titles are unique to the tasks that will be performed, allowing for specific recruitment and creating an applicant pool. This was deemed critical as UTRGV did not have the bench strength needed to successfully support growing the research support functions as needed. UTRGV has created needed flexibility with some roles that are clearly defined

and others that allow for adaptability in the changing world of research administration. In addition, HR provides support to DoR when the need arises to further review roles and customize job postings and throughout job posting, hiring, and salary setting process. This is done while keeping an eye on internal equity of the staff. HR and the DoR have proven to be capable partners in achieving shared staffing missions.

At this point in the growth of UTRGV, our ability to adapt allows us to meet bespoke staffing needs. This can be a benefit but can also limit staff looking to advance their careers in a systematic way. Each unique request is submitted through the central HR Office for assessment and justification, requiring HR and DoR to work together to keep lines of communication open, and to ensure swift action. In addition to staffing research administration, UTRGV engages with the DoR to identify research support needs for researchers early. All proposal budgets are prepared with insight from HR to define and meet the needs of faculty at the time of submission vs at the time of award to help ensure that as the university grows, DoR is able to post and hire research support staff in a way that is responsive to the needs of researchers.

Conclusion Both Tufts and UTRGV are highly focused on the support of research and research administration staff. Both universities strive for excellent candidates, hire in a timely manner, and even though the two institutions take different paths, both work to ensure constant communication between research administration and human resources to ensure the same positive outcomes.

As the job market in research administration changes, divisions of research will need to work closely with their Human Resources departments and determine which process, or hybrid of the two, works best for their needs. N References Academy to Innovate HR (AIHR). Job family. Retrieved March 21, 2024, at https://www. aihr.com/hr-glossary/job-family/ Ferry K. (2017). Korn Ferry Leadership Architect: Global competency framework. https://www.kornferry.com/capabilities/intelligence-cloud-hr-platform/korn-ferry-assess/leadership-architect National Science Foundation Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey (NCSEC). https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/herd/

Zoya Davis-Hamilton, Ed.D., CRA, is the Associate Vice Provost for Research Administration at Tufts University Office of the Vice Provost for Research. She has a BS in secondary education, an MS in psychology, and an Ed.D. in administrative leadership, as well as graduate training in sociology, law, and accounting. She is one of the SRAi instructors, former NCURA Magazine contributing editor, and the FDP representative for Tufts. She can be reached at zoya.hamilton@tufts.edu.

Thomas B. Spencer, Ph.D., MBA, is the Associate Vice President for Research Operations and Associate Professor of Health Sciences in the Department of Health and Biomedical Sciences at University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and teaches in the Johns Hopkins Research Administration master’s degree program. He has worked in Academia and Research Administration for 22+ years and is currently a member of the Board of Directors for NCURA. He can be reached at Thomas.Spencer@UTRGV.edu.

Kristina Chavez, MBA, is the Assistant Vice President of Human Resources for UTRGV’s Human Resources Department. Kristina has over 15 years of experience in human resources and more in higher education. Currently she oversees Compensation, HRIS, Talent Acquisition and Salary Administration for UTRGV, while also providing consultation in other areas. Kristina has a diploma in banking and finance from the London Chamber of Commerce, a bachelor’s and master’s degree in business administration from the University of Applied Sciences in Lueneburg, Germany and a master’s in business administration from the University of Texas – Pan American. She can be reached at Kristina.Chavez@UTRGV.edu.

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

25

THANKS TO OUR OUTGOING VOLUNTEER LEADERS!

As a member-staff driven organization, the success of NCURA is a result of the time and commitment provided by our member volunteers. We would like to take this opportunity to recognize those who have dedicated countless hours to support their colleagues and our professional staff by taking a leading role in furthering the goals and the values of the organization.

Thank you to the following volunteers who are completing their service terms in 2024: Executive Committee Timothy Schailey, Thomas Jefferson University, Treasurer Bryony Wakefield, King’s College London, Immediate Past President Board of Directors Emily Devereux, University of South Carolina Mary Louise Healy, Johns Hopkins University Derick Jones, Onyx Clinical Research Group Laura Kingsley, University of Pittsburgh Nancy Lewis, University of California-Irvine David Smelser, University of Tennessee Ashley Stahle, Colorado State University Lisa Wottrich, SRI International Susan Zipkin, University of New Hampshire Financial Management Committee Timothy Schailey, Thomas Jefferson University, Treasurer Nancy Devino, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston Nominating & Leadership Development Committee Rosemary Madnick, Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Chair Kendra Ellis, Duke University Medical Center Jaquion Gholston, Howard University Amanda Snyder, University of Washington Bryony Wakefield, King’s College London, Immediate Past President Denise Wallen, University of New Mexico Julie Ward, University of the Sunshine Coast Professional Development Committee Natalie Buys, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Chair Abby Guillory, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Vice Chair Carrie Chesbro, Stanford University Rashonda Harris, Johns Hopkins University Aimee Kendall Roundtree, Texas State University, Ex Officio, RMR Editor Rebecca Libera, Colorado State University Denise Moody, Lundquist Institute of Biomedical Innovation, Ex Officio, NCURA Vice President Kathryn O’Hayre, Colorado State University Amy Ossola-Phillips, University of California-San Francisco, Ex Officio, Collaborate Chair Stephanie Rodriguez-Makhlouf, University of Central Florida Trisha Southergill, Colorado State University Noelle Strom, University of Denver Amanda Tan, University of California-Los Angeles Randi Wasik, University of Louisville Angela Wishon, Prisma Health, Ex Officio, NCURA Magazine Senior Editor NCURA Magazine Angela Wishon, Prisma Health, Senior Editor Charles Bartunek, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Bella Blaher, University of Melbourne Albana Cejne, Princeton University Alesia El Ali, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Bruxanne El-Kammash, University of Chicago Jill Frankenfield, University of Maryland, Baltimore Kathleen Furr, Cornell University Abby Guillory, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Katherine Kissmann, Texas A&M University Minessa Konecky, Minessa InK Kristen Massey, University of Tennessee Shuna McMichael, Occidental College Jerome Rickmann, Aalto University Kasey Schubert, Tufts University Nicolas Schulthess, Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts Lisa Stroud, University of Florida Kairi Williams, University of California, Berkeley

26

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

Select Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tanya Blackwell, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Chair Ebony Jones, University of Chicago Heather Lewis, New York Genome Center Kartik Yadav, University of California-Irvine Reem Younis, United Arab Emirates Ministry of Education Select Committee on Global Affairs Jaroslav Sip, Czech Technical University in Prague, Chair Sylvia Ezekilova, George Washington University Megan Moore, Harvard University Beatrice Sakyibea Biney-Nyamekye, University of Ghana Edward Wiedemann, University of California-San Francisco Bruno Woeran, Paracelsus Private Medical University, Salzburg Select Committee on Peer Programs Tricia Callahan, Emory University, Chair Lois Brako, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Vice Chair Rosemary Madnick, Lundquist Institute of Biomedical Innovation Bruce Morgan, University of California-Irvine Toni Shaklee, Oklahoma State University Education Scholarship Fund Select Committee Jennifer Harman, University of Rochester, Chair Kristi Pickering, Yale University Grace Martey, University of Cambridge Luigi Pellegrino, Bocconi University Joanna Sabal, University of Connecticut Charles Shannon, Loughborough University Traveling Workshop Faculty Csilla Csaplár, University of California-Santa Cruz, Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects Administration Workshop Jeremy Forsberg, The University of Texas at Arlington, Financial Research Administration Workshop Sandra Fowler, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects Administration Workshop Vivian Holmes, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Level II: Sponsored Projects Administration Workshop Rosemary Madnick, Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects Administration Workshop Lisa Mosely, Yale University, Financial Research Administration Workshop Timothy Schailey, Thomas Jefferson University, Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects Administration Workshop Shannon Sutton, Western Illinois University, Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects Administration Workshop Susan Zipkin, University of New Hampshire, Financial Research Administration Workshop Young Professional Council Leah Acajabon, Penn State University Park Amanda Buker, University of Nebraska Jessica Bulmanski, University of Arkansas Brianna Burke, Loyola University of Chicago Allison DeVries, Chapman University Christal Douglas, Washington University in St Louis Samantha Fagone, Stony Brook University Katie Gomez Freeman, Southern Utah University Katy Gathron, MD Anderson Cancer Center Clair Green-Schwartz, University of Cincinnati Liz Grinstead, University of Chicago Dennis Guttman, University of Michigan Kiana Kennamore, University of Alabama Brittany McHenry, University of Tennessee Karina Patino-Guzman, University of Colorado Jaclyn Prechtl, University at Buffalo Shanea Raj, Virginia Commonwealth University

Dannielle Sesay, New Jersey Department of Higher Education Noelle Strom, University of Denver Collaborate Working Groups Amy Ossola-Phillips, University of California-San Francisco, Chair John Jay Alves, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute Dalila Alves, Providence College Kelly Andringa, University of Iowa, ERA Chair Misty Ayim, Oregon State University Kristi Bazata, Columbia University in the City of New York, Compensation Chair Bella Blaher, University of Melbourne, Global Chair Erica Carpenter, Penn State College of Medicine Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Anna Dampf, Rowan University Melissa Emanus, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, PRA Chair Sylvia Ezekilova, George Washington University Daniela Gallardo, University of California-Santa Barbara Marianna Gurtovnik, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center Amanda He, City of Hope National Medical Center, Beckman Research Institute Leslie Hunter, Institute for Systems Biology Amy Johnson, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Gertrude Jones, George Washington University Denise Jurca, University of Iowa Carla Keller-Tran, University of Kansas Medical Center Karen Kimes, University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus Minessa Konecky, Minessa K Le Li, University of Saskatchewan Danielle Lissberger, Duke University Amanda Lynch, Tufts University Regina Matheson, St. Ambrose University, PUI Chair Maureen McCarthy, Quinnipiac University Desiree Mendez-Caltzontzint, University of Texas Health Science Center Olumide Odeyemi, University of Tasmania Laura Pattillo, Auburn University, DRA Chair Tonya Pinkerton, Georgetown University, DEI Chair Natasa Raskovic, Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation Monica Rongere, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Compliance Chair Katherine Sackman, The Evergreen State College Doris Schultz, New York University Jasmine Walker, Harvard University Becky Welch, East Carolina University, Artificial Intelligence Chair Joy West, Georgia Institute of Technology Ashley Whitaker, Nova Southeastern University, Compensation Chair NCURA would also like to thank ALL of our volunteers, who have dedicated time to plan, present, and assist in the execution of our conferences; contribute to the educational resources provided to our members; foster professional networking and knowledge exchange; and enhance the NCURA community.

If you are interested in becoming more involved with your professional association, visit NCURA’s Volunteer Central to learn more about available volunteer opportunities.

Please contact Audrey Nwosu, Manager Membership and Volunteer Services, for more information at nwosu@ncura.edu.

We’ve worked hard to ensure this list represents all our volunteers completing service terms, but if we missed you, please accept our apology and our sincere thanks for your contributions to the research community.

Looking Toward the Horizon: Libraries in Direct and Indirect Costs

By Hilary Craiglow

T

he stereotypical image of libraries—a silent space filled with rows of dusty books—is outdated. This old-fashioned view does not reflect the dynamic, multifaceted role that libraries play in the research ecosystem. In understanding the library’s integral role in research—particularly the associated costs—library expenses can be itemized in grants and demonstrated in indirect cost recovery.

Libraries walk with principal investigators (PIs) throughout the research lifecycle. They provide essential information science expertise and scholarship services that support campus research activities. The work of libraries accelerates, strengthens, and amplifies research. A central way libraries do this work is by navigating a complex and changing information landscape. Libraries help PIs focus on conducting science, not administration.

For direct costs, libraries support researchers with Research Data Management (RDM) and help comply with grant obligations. For indirect costs, library organizations contribute to the institution’s research mission, providing infrastructure and support services, access to published scholarship, technology systems, consultation, and training.

Direct Costs Federal grant direct costs—expenses that can be attributed to a specific project, such as salaries, equipment, and supplies—can include library expenses. Library support for research projects can be included in grant proposals. Notably, libraries are essential partners in Research Data Management (RDM).

RDM is a process to organize, store, preserve, and share data collected during research projects. This work ensures data integrity, accessibility, and reuse. The result of this process supports reproducible research, facilitates data sharing, and enhances the long-term value of research data.

Libraries help develop effective data management plans to maintain data integrity, comply with legal and ethical standards, and facilitate collaboration and future reuse. Activities may include consultation, secure storage solutions, metadata development and documentation, and ensuring compliance with funder requirements.

Some federal grants, from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the National Science Foundation (NSF), allow certain RDM costs to be billed as direct costs if they are necessary for the conduct of the research and are allowable, allocable, and reasonable.

Research libraries support RDM with a suite of services, expertise, and infrastructure. While certain RDM costs can be billed directly to federal grants, the eligibility of these costs depends on their direct impact on a research project. The ability to enumerate library RDM costs requires a collaborative environment between the researcher, research administration, and the library. Understanding specific RDM costs can be challenging.

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

27

Library Support for RDM Research Data Management involves several critical activities that span the entire research process: • Planning Developing a comprehensive Data Management Plan (DMP) outlines methods for collecting, storing, sharing, and preserving research data.

• Collection and Organization Establishing standardized procedures for gathering, documenting, and organizing data to maintain consistency and ensure data quality.

• Storage and Security Providing secure and scalable options for data storage, including cloud servers and repositories, ensuring data security and accessibility.

• Documentation Compose documentation to facilitate understanding and reuse of the data by future researchers.

• Metadata Creating structured information about the data, such as its content, format, creation date, and author, to improve discoverability and accessibility.

• Sharing and Publishing Assisting researchers in sharing their data through repositories, supporting open science initiatives, and fulfilling federal mandates.

• Preservation Ensuring long-term data storage and preservation strategies to support long-term data integrity and accessibility.

Costs of RDM Direct library costs for RDM can vary depending on the scope of services provided, the size and nature of datasets, and the level of support required.

Typical RDM costs include: • Storage Costs for storing data during the life of the project.

• Sharing and Archiving Fees for depositing data in repositories to make data publicly accessible.

• Personnel Time spent by library staff directly involved in data management tasks and are specific to the funded project.

• Software and Tools Costs for specialized data management or analysis software, provided they are essential for the research grant.

To ensure that RDM costs are appropriately accounted for and justified in direct grant costs, library and research teams need to collaborate during the proposal phase.

Indirect Costs In addition to RDM direct costs, research libraries perform a variety of essential functions that support a university’s research community. University libraries support strong foundations for campus-wide research efforts, including licensing published scholarship, research data storage, digital repositories, bibliometrics, training for systematic reviews, data analysis and research methods, grant compliance management, and preservation of research output. While direct costs for data storage, sharing, and personnel time specifically related to a project’s data management can be billed to grants, indirect costs are typically covered by institutional overhead rates.

In addition to library spaces and the teaching mission, research libraries incur costs in support of the institution’s sponsored research infrastructure. Salary and operational expenses are demonstrated in four key areas: licensing and access to published content and scholarship, repositories, consultations, and training.

28

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

Licensing and Access to Published Content Access to published scholarship is an essential foundation for any successful research project. Libraries negotiate licenses with publishers and vendors to provide access to journals, databases, e-books, and other digital resources. Library staff oversee contracts, renewals, and compliance with licensing agreements, including negotiating “transformative agreements” or read-and-publish deals. These licenses allow researchers to publish open access without additional direct fees to the researcher.

As good stewards of their tight budgets, libraries monitor and analyze the usage of licensed content to inform future purchases.

Licensing quality content is expensive. Costs for subscription fees, license agreements, and access fees to digital resources increase year over year. Licensing is only the first step, providing seamless access and discoverability of content to academic communities requires technology systems and staff expertise. In addition to the license fees, costs for this work include salaries for librarians involved in negotiations with hundreds of publishers and vendors, operating discovery systems, technological infrastructure, and managing authentication systems. Additional expenses include the tools that help manage resource licenses and track usage analytics.

Repositories Libraries manage institutional and discipline-specific repositories that store and provide access to research data, ensuring it is preserved, discoverable, and available for future use. Repositories store and amplify the research output of the institution and ensure compliance with research regulations. Libraries maintain digital archives of scholarly works produced by the institution, such as theses, dissertations, publications, and conference papers. Libraries also often manage data repositories, which focus on research datasets. Importantly, libraries develop standardized metadata to ensure the discoverability and proper categorization of digital assets and implement strategies for long-term preservation, including future file format migration. Library expertise for repositories supports data curation, metadata standards, and repository management. Libraries are also knowledgeable in discipline-focused data repositories managed by scholarly associations and guide researchers on appropriate repositories and compliance with their use.

Costs associated with repositories include salaries for librarians and technologists, servers, cloud storage, software licenses, and repository platforms, and can include hardware replacement and maintenance.

Training research teams by library specialists focusing on repository and preservation technologies incur additional costs.

Consultations Librarians provide one-on-one and group consultations focused on specific research projects and tailored to research teams. Increasingly, research groups imbed librarians into their labs. Providing targeted support for busy researchers accelerates and optimizes the research team’s efforts. Personalized consultations and training can be focused on data management plans, data analysis tools, data preservation strategies, copyright, fair use, open-access publishing, literature searches and systematic reviews, data visualization, and data analysis using specialized software and digital tools.

Consultation costs include salaries for research data experts with discipline knowledge and functional specialists knowledgeable in technologies, research methodologies, and project management. Additionally, there are expenses related to keeping librarians and staff updated on new research tools, software, and best practices.

Training Libraries regularly conduct skills training workshops on data management, digital tools, data sharing and preservation, software, research

methodologies, coding, and data visualization techniques. They guide open science, copyright, publishing, and research impact metrics, sometimes called bibliometrics. Successful research projects will incorporate innovative information-gathering, analysis methods, and tools. Library training on these methods is offered to both the broad academic community and specific disciplines, research groups and projects. The creation of digital learning resources, such as webinars, tutorials, and guides, supports just-in-time remote and asynchronous learning.

Training researchers on methods and software requires information scientists and functional specialists with deep knowledge of subjects and disciplines. Experts in teaching and creating instructional content, and people skilled in digital tools, software, and technologies are also required for support researcher development. In addition to salaries for training sessions, costs include developing learning materials, digital resources, software, platforms, and tools used in workshops and webinars.

Recovery of Indirect Costs Following Uniform Guidance, there are two primary ways library costs can be calculated for indirect cost recovery proposals: Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) or a Special Library Study.

FTE, a simple systematic approach to determining library costs, allocates all library costs by the ratio of the institution’s students, faculty, post-docs, and other users. With an understanding of research library activities and costs, research administrators can strategically develop library sub-pools to improve a university’s FTE calculation. This strategy is most effective when done in collaboration with campus library partners.

A Special Library Study offers a refined and strategic way to document the actual costs incurred by libraries in support of sponsored research. In

this method, costs are pooled and allocated based on the purpose of use, studies are conducted specific to an institution, account for the changing nature of library support for research, and document actual library users.

Thoughtfully including libraries in indirect cost recovery strategies can optimize the library component of their rate proposals.

Summary Research libraries play a critical role in supporting federally sponsored research. They provide essential services, infrastructure, and expertise that impact both direct and indirect costs of research grants. Key functions of research libraries include negotiating content licensing, providing discovery tools, access to data, and information science expertise. These activities incur associated costs such as salaries, publisher fees, and technology expenses.

The relationship between libraries and research administration is not just about costs; it is about collaboration. Libraries are partners in the research process. They offer a range of research support services that extend far beyond library spaces. I invite you to reach out to your library partners to learn more. N

Hilary Craiglow, M.L.I.S., leads the Library Planning and Strategy Services group at Attain Partners. A leader in the library and information science field, she has a deep understanding of college and university systems and extensive experience leading academic and research libraries. At Attain Partners, Hilary is responsible for administering the Library Cost Study, helping universities calculate the library component of their indirect cost rate proposals. She can be reached at hacraiglow@attainpartners.com.

1/2 PG AD

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

29

SELF CARE FOR THE RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR

Before Burnout Settles In: Meditation in Practice with Research Administration

By Vanessa Rook

M

y friends and I were gathered for a small dinner, laughing and sharing stories about life, families, and failed dates. We were

discussing new music, old TV shows, and vacations.

As the conversation naturally turned to work, I found myself sharing how professionally busy I was with long nights and early mornings spent consuming several cups of coffee. I wore my work stress like a badge of honor – I love all the jobs I’ve had over my decade-plus career in research administration, and my profession defines a huge portion of who I am as a person.

But I noticed one friend looking at me with concern.

Mid-sentence, he stopped me: “Vanessa, I think you are in a state of burnout. And I recognize it, because it’s happened to me.”

30

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

Burnout and stress rates are rising, and we must give serious consideration to the implications of these growing numbers. The American Psychological Association surveyed adult workers in 2021 and found that “79% of employees had experienced work-related stress in the month before the survey. Nearly three in five employees reported negative impacts of work-related stress… Meanwhile, 36% reported cognitive weariness, 32% reported emotional exhaustion, and 44% reported physical fatigue—a 38% increase since 2019” (Abramson, 2022).

Those statistics tell a story, one that I hear echoed at every conference or meeting I attend. For myself, dread and anxiety would build up more often than I’d like to admit. Once I finally addressed my burnout, I started researching everything I could (and even began presenting on mental health with my colleague and friend Michael at national conferences).

At the end of 2023, NCURA asked me to film a short YouTube Tuesday on mindfulness, and I started to meditate.

The act and practice of meditation are difficult to define, as it represents something different for everyone, depending on your philosophical, religious, and stylistic approach to the process. Meditation is “a practice that involves focusing or clearing your mind using a combination of mental and physical techniques” (Cleveland Clinic, 2022). Meditation can be practiced in a group or on your own, and it can start or end your day. You can meditate during a stressful event to become grounded or when traveling if you experience flight anxiety like me. Meditation can involve mantras or movement, or you can meditate lying down where you are most comfortable. I’ve practiced standing meditations with a former colleague after meetings, and my new institution provides a subscription to the Ten Percent Happier app, accessible through my phone. Meditation takes no more than a few minutes a day and is beyond customizable to what you need. I find meditation to be one of the best fits for processing stress within research administration because of its connection to learning and training.

Think back to nearly every training you have attended in the past, where someone asks a question, and the presenter answers, “Well, it depends.”

It’s become one of the most famous universal jokes within our field, and I feel cliché even typing it here. Teaching research administration is difficult when you constantly feel like you can never become an expert. I know that frequent changes often make me feel like I am back at the beginning, starting fresh and learning everything for the first time. Meditation is practiced the same way. When I started following a guided program, every session reminded me to pause if my thoughts became scattered. “As soon as you notice your mind has wandered, just return your attention to the breath….no matter how many times you get lost, no matter how long you get lost for, as long as you are returning to the breath again and again - you are meditating” (Ten Percent Happier, 2016). As we sign up for training on federal policy updates (looking at you, Uniform Guidance!) think of it not as a frustrating change but as the process of learning and starting again.

I advocate for daily meditation because caring for yourself during the “9-to-5 hours” is an integral part of your job and the best way to prevent or start healing from burnout. Try taking a mindful approach to your version of wellness and meditation. It can also help build a better relationship with your peers, supervisors, and faculty so they can understand the importance of healthy boundaries and work-life balance. In the past,

We need to move from seeing burnout and job pressure as a sign of success and look towards a future where meditation or any mindfulness practice is incorporated into work.

when I was overwhelmed, I focused on success – my growing career and pride in my professional development. We know, as research administrators, that this is a stressful job. It never feels like we can compare – we’re not doctors saving lives, public defenders with heavy caseloads, or construction workers with back-breaking tasks. However, working with research faculty helps them secure their research funding. We read through pages of grant contracts like a lawyer. And we often work well over our allotted 40 hours a week, sitting with little relief at our desks.

We need to move from seeing burnout and job pressure as a sign of success and look towards a future where meditation or any mindfulness practice is incorporated into work. Gone are the days when we threw up our hands and accepted that we couldn’t change the culture in research administration. Because remember – you can always begin again. N

References Abramson, A. (2022, January 1). Burnout and stress are everywhere. Monitor on Psychology. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/01/special-burnout-stress Cleveland Clinic medical (Ed.). (2022, May 22). Meditation: What it is, Benefits & Types.

Cleveland Clinic. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/17906-meditation Ten Percent Happier. (2016, September 1). How to meditate for Beginners. Ten Percent Happier. https://www.happierapp.com/meditationblog/how-to-meditate

Vanessa Rook is a Harvard Medical School research administrator with over a decade of experience. She has an extensive communication background, concentrating on academic writing, science communication, and online communities. Her professional focus is on the future of research administration: the retention and investment of young professionals in their careers through mentorship, education, and self-assurance. She can be reached at vanessa_ rook@hms.harvard.edu.

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

31

New Era in Research Development with the Launch of the EMERGE Resource Library for MSIs and ERIs

By Kimberly Eck and Japera Hemming

T

he National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP) Consultants Program is committed to increasing the diversity of the US national research ecosystem by partnering with Minority-Serving and Emerging Research Institutions (MSIs and ERIs) to implement research development strategies at no cost to the institution. To date, the program has partnered with 172 institutions of higher education (IHEs), all of which are ERIs and 73 are MSIs (including 33 Historically Black Colleges or Universities (HBCUs), 26 Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), and 14 other IHEs with designations, such as Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNHs), Predominantly Black Institution (PBIs), and Native American- Serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTIs) spanning 44 states and territories. More than 40 individuals support the NORDP Consultants Program, including 26 consultants, four expert research administrators, several peer mentors, advisory group members, and program leadership.

Since the program’s inception in 2021, MSIs and ERIs in the program have secured an incredible $90.6M, including $63.4M dedicated to building continued research capacity building activities and resources for their institutions.

Background Research development is a function that seeks to grow research or increase the research reputation of an institution (Eck & Roney, 2022).

Research development professionals most commonly engage in activities, such as identifying and disseminating funding opportunities, facilitating interdisciplinary collaborations, providing proposal development services, and reporting on success metrics (Eck & Roney, 2022). From an analysis of research development job descriptions and salary surveys, most research development professionals are employed by IHEs that are classified as R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research activity according to the contemporaneous Carnegie Classifications or as a high-performing academic medical center not eligible to receive R1 status (Preuss et al., 2019; Preuss, et al., 2020) leaving MSIs and ERIs at a disadvantage when competing for research funding. Between 2010 and 2022, the top 150 research institutions based on total research expenditures, as reported in the Higher Education Research & Development (HERD) survey, grew by 70%, while more than other 500 IHEs saw only a 5% over the same time period (Pai et al., 2024). To address this disparity and further NORDP’s deep dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion, the NORDP Consultants Program was launched in 2021.

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

33

Program Structure The NORDP Consultants Program utilizes three models of engagement: 1) intensive cohorts; 2) embedded proposal development; and 3) partnerinitiated proposals. In the intensive cohort engagements, partnering institutions are paired with a team of NORDP Consultants to complete a three-phase process to build and implement strategic and sustainable plans that grow institutional capacity for research. A lead contact, who is often a leader within the institution’s research infrastructure serves as the primary contact and implements the strategic plans with the consultants over two years. (Eck, 2023).

In the embedded proposal development model of engagement, a funding agency soliciting applications from MSIs and ERIs embeds NORDP Consultants in the application process to provide coaching and proposal development services to support the submission of competitive proposals. (Eck et al., 2023.) The NORDP Consultants Program also welcomes opportunities from MSIs and ERIs to collaborate with the NORDP Consultants Program to submit an external application that would support NORDP Consultants’ engagement. If awarded, the institution is then paired with NORDP Consultants to conduct strategic planning and implement the desired research development activities. Partner-initiated requests to collaborate are evaluated individually. If the request aligns with the mission of the NORDP Consultants program and reasonable resources are available, the NORDP Consultants develops a custom scope of work to support the MSI or ERI in achieving their goals for the proposal and project.

EMERGE Resource Library A key component of the NORDP Consultants Program is the creation of accessible and tailored resources. To this end, the NORDP Consultants Program enthusiastically announces the launch of the Equipping Minoritized and Emerging Research Institutions to Grow their Enterprises (EMERGE) Resource Library. The EMERGE Library is the first national library of collaboratively written and peer-reviewed plain language research enterprise guides that center the voice, perspective, and expertise of MSIs and ERIs. Importantly, all EMERGE topics were identified by and with MSIs and ERIs partnering with the NORDP Consultants Program.

The EMERGE Resource Library documents the research enterprise best practices and strategic innovation that MSIs and ERIs leverage to make substantive contributions to the US research enterprise. These resources cover a range of topics related to both research administration and research development, and are tailored for different audiences, including

NORDP’s EMERGE Resource Library offers best practices and strategic innovation for MSIs and ERIs. faculty, research support staff, and research leadership. They offer practical guidance on implementing specific research enterprise skills, functions, services, or strategies.

Over time, the EMERGE Resource Library, designed by, with, and for research leaders across MSIs and ERI will continue to expand to include proposal development supports, research enterprise policy and process examples, guidelines for institutional goals, and other topics. The inaugural resources are accessible on the NORDP Consultants Program’s website, including: 1. Brown, B. Hemming, J. and Eck, K. (2024) Mechanism Summary and Guide for Investigators: NIH R16 SURE and SURE-First. National Organization of Research Development Professionals Consultants Program EMERGE Resource Library.

2. Hawk, J., Koduvayur, S., and Scholz, C. (2024). Mechanism Summary and Guide for Investigators: NIH R15. National Organization of Research Development Professionals Consultants Program EMERGE Resource Library.

3. Correa, L., Jager, B., and Steenrod, S. (2024). Mechanism Summary and Guide for Investigators: NSF CAREER. National Organization of Research Development Professionals Consultants Program EMERGE Resource Library.

Conclusion Through its engagements thus far, the NORDP Consultants Program has proven the effectiveness of its consultant-driven model in providing tailored research development support to MSIs and ERIs. The program’s multi-faceted approach, which includes strategic planning, proposal development, and targeted capacity-building, has demonstrated measurable

Table 1: Three-Phase Engagement Framework Phase

Key Activities

Phase 1: Intake

• Consultants collect and review institutional strategic plans, proposal and award data, information on centers and institutes, recent assessments or faculty feedback, and similar documents • Consultants interview key stakeholders, such as vice president for research and staff, deans, associate deans for research, and successful researchers to hone goals for the research enterprise, barriers, successes, and existing resources

Phase 2: Planning

• Consultants summarize information received • Consultants identify potential areas for improvement in collaboration with MSIs •C onsultants, through an Engagement Plan Template, document institutional goals for advancing the research enterprise as well as activities to achieve these goals (this is an iterative drafting process conducted in collaboration with MSI partner)

Phase 3: Implementation

• Consultants implement Engagement Plan activities • Consultants revisit remainder of Engagement Plan and make revisions, as needed

34

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

impacts on the research capabilities of participating institutions. The substantial amount of funding secured by these institutions—over $90 million since the program’s inception—is a testament to the transformative potential of dedicated research development support.

The NORDP Consultants Program is not just an initiative; it represents a critical step toward expanding the national research ecosystem and thoughtfully supporting MSIs/ERIs making innovative contributions to science and other disciplines. By fostering meaningful partnerships and providing bespoke research development strategies, the program enables these institutions to play a more prominent role in the national research ecosystem.

However, the work does not stop here. As the NORDP Consultants Program continues to expand, it invites new MSIs and ERIs to participate in this transformative initiative. Institutions interested in scaling their research capabilities, securing competitive funding, and implementing sustainable research development strategies are encouraged to take the next step and apply to be a part of the cohort model and begin a discussion about a partner-initiated proposal.

Call to Action If your institution is looking to strengthen its research infrastructure, collaborate on impactful research projects, or access resources that will drive long-term success, the NORDP Consultants Program wants to hear from you. Visit the NORDP Consultants Program website to explore partnership opportunities, review program models, and access the groundbreaking EMERGE Resource Library. Here, you will find the tools and resources necessary to accelerate your institution’s research ambitions. N References Eck, K., & Roney, J. (2022). A NORD invited opinion: What is research development? A New Opportunities in Research Development (NORD) Publication. National Organization of Research Development Professionals. https://nordp.memberclicks.net/assets/NORD/ Eck_Roney_WhatIsRD_.pdf Eck, K. (2023). Feasibility and early results of providing research development consulting services to HBCUs: Year 1 of the NORDP Consultants Pilot Project. A New Opportunities in Research Development (NORD) Publication. National Organization of Research Development Professionals. https://nordp.memberclicks.net/assets/NORD/Eck_Feasibility%20and%20Early%20Results_FINAL.pdf Eck, K., Renoe, S., & Pai, A. (2023). Real-time capacity building: Feasibility of embedding RD consultants in a federal funding competition. A New Opportunities in Research Development (NORD) Publication. National Organization of Research Development Professionals. https://nordp.memberclicks.net/assets/NORD/Eck_Renoe_Pai_2024_Article.pdf Pai, A., Eck, K., Renoe, S., Brown Clarke, J., Brown, B., Coley, C., Collier-Youngblood, M., Fields, H., Hammonds Odie, L., Hendrickson, T., Hollowell, G., Huizinga, D., Inniss, T., Maglia, A., Nader, R., Talley, C., Vassmer, S., Washington, T., Weintraub, J., Williams, K., Winfield, L. (2024). Strategies for Building Capacity at Minority Serving Institutions for Advancing Research and Research Impacts. https://doi.org/10.32469/10355/98061 Kimberly Eck, MPH, PhD, Senior Associate Vice President, Emory University, and Senior Director, NORDP Consultants Program.

Kimberly, former NORDP President, launched its Consultant Program in 2021 and is the Senior Director. At Emory, she’s the Senior Associate VP for Research, leading Research Development and Training Grant Support. Her research development career spans roles at the University of Tennessee, Geisinger, SUNY, and a private firm. She can be reached at keck@emory.edu.

Japera Hemming, PhD, Project Director, NSF NORDP Consultants Program expansion, has promoted STEM participation for underrepresented students and faculty at the University of Georgia, Morehouse School of Medicine, and Georgia State. Her published work appears in several journals, including Academic Medicine and Ethnicity & Disease, and books on racism in STEM fields. She can be reached at japera.hemming@emory.edu.

WORK SMART Information Telescope: How to See Research News on the Horizon

By Csilla M. Csaplár

I

n our world of information overload, it can be taxing to keep up with the barrage of policy, regulation, and process changes. It is harder still to know how these changes impact your team and your institution. To keep up with news as it appears on the horizon, consider using these resources: Sponsor and association listservs This is the easiest place to start as listservs provide opportunities to be part of the dialogue around our collective challenges. Be sure to curate what you receive and focus on what is most relevant to your role.

Establish email filters so you don’t flood your inbox, and set aside time periodically to skim for important highlights.

Governmental relations partners If your campus has a governmental relations team, arrange to meet them. They often share pertinent information with campus partners.

Even if you’re not the decision-maker, it is helpful to know (and be able to ask questions) about issues your campus and your colleagues are encountering.

Communities practice Participating in a community of practice engages a network of peers to crowd-source solutions, vet your interpretation or implementation plan, and learn best practices. Seek (or create!) one within peer roles at your institution, local region, state college system, or sports conference.

Teach approach With so many sponsors, funding mechanisms, systems, and more, we feel like we must know everything, which is not a reality for even the most experienced research administrators! I encourage teams to learn how to approach a new solicitation, agreement, policy, task, etc., rather than memorize specific details of each sponsor. Instead of creating a static checklist, consider areas of responsibility for a task or project.

This will help you identify what to look for, including what may be missing, and tailor your review to the circumstance. This takes practice and exposure, but is a great way to develop confidence and problemsolving skills so you are ready for the next new thing. N Csilla M. Csaplár is the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research at University of California, Santa Cruz, and an NCURA Distinguished Educator. She encourages curiosity and can be reached at csilla@ucsc.edu.

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

35

You Can’t Stop the Beat:

Training and Retention for a Changing World in Research Administration

By Ashley Marciano and Timothy Schailey

A

s staff shortages and turnover persist, hiring, training, and retention have become critical priorities as many organizations have turned to hiring newcomers to the field. As described by Heisey (2023) in “Why New Research Administrators Quit in the First Year,” common challenges in hiring newcomers include insufficient training, unrealistic expectations, work-life imbalance, and lack of diversity and inclusion. In 2024, Prokopets mentioned (as cited by The Society for Human Resource Management [SHRM]), “the average cost per hire was $4,129 in 2019 but rose to $4,700 in 2023, which is a 14% increase,” making large turnover a significant financial burden.

Federal agencies frequently release new or clarifying guidance, which can be ambiguous or difficult to implement. Hiring managers face the challenge of navigating these changes while ensuring teams are equipped for success.

The title of this article is inspired by Hairspray, a musical about an enthusiastic teenager on a dancing television show who becomes an advocate for integration, acceptance, and community. The characters face challenges but succeed through self-reflection, building foundations, and celebrating different themes for training and retaining staff in research administration.

Emphasis on Fundamentals A strong foundation is essential. To ensure that new employees build the necessary groundwork, it is critical to include an introduction or review of core concepts.

Portfolio Objectives and Target Audiences Training should focus on the specific needs of sponsors and faculty within an administrator’s portfolio. For example, if the individual’s portfolio requires an understanding of opportunities offered for cancer research, focus training efforts on the National Cancer Institute or similar funders.

Incremental Exposure & Scenario-Based Learning Research administration training is saturated with “it depends” situations requiring staff to recall past experiences, how something was handled, and the outcome. Scenario-based training provides real-world application of fundamental skills, offering practical learning opportunities.

Start Small and Build Introduce your new staff to more straightforward tasks first. In pre-award, for example, start with a single-site National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 application before introducing more complex scenarios. In postaward, review the various types of documents used internally and when (e.g., cost transfer forms).

Opportunities for Growth Include new or junior staff in complex scenarios with senior staff guidance. For example, an administrator unfamiliar with an NIH program project can support a more experienced colleague, allowing them to face new challenges with reduced pressure.

Why This Matters Incremental exposure reduces anxiety and boosts confidence by easing staff into their roles. This approach allows tailored training and encourages reflection and feedback for future scenarios.

Adaptability Focus Creating an atmosphere that embraces change is vital to address its impact.

Resources and Education Access Maintain a repository of templates, manuals, forms, webinars, and training materials that are easily accessible to staff, updating it regularly with new learning opportunities.

Encourage Continued Education, Curiosity, and Collaboration After developing the resource repository, continue to seek and participate in learning opportunities offered by professional societies, sponsors, and your institution, and encourage your staff to do the same.

Engage in discussions with staff on key topics while creating a safe environment with open communication that reduces fear of repercussion and supports diverse perspectives. Facilitating group discussions that appreciate all viewpoints leads to embracing change rather than fearing it.

Why This Matters Focusing on fundamentals promotes core skill development and fosters reliability. This foundation enables research administrators to address sponsors effectively and faculty needs as they arise.

Why This Matters By accepting change through education and collaboration, staff are empowered to manage the inevitable stressors of sponsor and institutional shifts.

36

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

Resourcefulness and Collaborative Development Many of the problems we are asked to resolve feel as though we are required to defy gravity.

Collaboration and Relationship Building Schedule introductions with faculty, collaborators, and other departments to build a strong support network for new employees.

Mentorship Program Establish a mentorship program within your team. In this program, new staff are partnered with experienced colleagues who provide consistent support throughout their development.

Why This Matters By incorporating resource development and collaboration into training and team development, you create an environment of respect, trust amongst peers, communication, independent problem-solving, and feedback.

Feedback Loops Understanding how your team learns and responds to expectations allows managers to tailor training support. Consistent feedback sessions help address any gaps in learning and highlight growth opportunities.

Personalized Training and Support Schedule time regularly with staff to gauge their training progress, review challenges, and discuss ways to further support the individual.

Provide and Accept Real-Time Feedback Do not wait until annual reviews. Provide constructive feedback in real-time to allow your staff to feel appreciated or implement real-time corrections.

Check-ins with staff will provide a more dynamic approach to retention and development while identifying additional learning opportunities.

Why This Matters Continuous feedback improves performance and engagement while reducing the fear of failure.

Stress Management Techniques, Mindfulness, and Building Resilience Work-life balance is crucial for retention. Setting boundaries and promoting mindfulness helps mitigate stress and fosters a more balanced workplace.

Boundaries and Communication Model boundaries and set clear expectations. Communicate norms and requirements while allowing flexibility. Once set, boundaries must be respected.

Foster an environment that allows individuals to identify needs and ask for support. Encourage staff to prioritize tasks and voice concerns when workloads become unmanageable.

Mindfulness and Stress Management Incorporate the practice of being present in all situations and in real-time.

This will encourage your team to acknowledge a situation, associated stress, and its implications. Then, move on. You can reshape an obstacle into an opportunity rather than an issue.

Recognition and Growth Opportunities Recognize staff for their support, a special job well done, and for addressing challenges. Words of affirmation can have a significant impact on an individual’s self-confidence and productivity.

Identify opportunities and growth for specific staff based on their skillsets and interests. During retention check-ins, reserve time to understand your team’s aspirations.

Why This Matters The bullets above encourage active listening, reflection, recognition, feedback, and growth opportunities. This approach builds an environment for collaborative improvement and offers your team a stake in their institution’s success.

Overall, to ensure the retention of research administrators, it is critical to build a foundation that emphasizes fundamentals, adaptability, and collaborative growth. Organizations create a supportive and productive environment by integrating scenario-based learning, fostering open communication, and offering continuous feedback. Retention efforts will also benefit from promoting and respecting work-life balance, and stress management strategies, ultimately leading to a more engaged and resilient workforce. N References Heisey, S. (2023, May 11). Society of Research Administrators International News. Why New Research Administrators Quit in the First Year. https://www.srainternational.org/ blogs/srai-news/2023/05/11/why-new-research-administrators-quit-in-the-first Prokopets, E. (2024, July 19). Toggle blog. The True Cost of Hiring an Employee in 2024. https://toggl.com/blog/cost-of-hiring-an-employee Weinstein, M. (2002). Hairspray [Musical]. New Line Theatre.

Ashley Marciano is an Associate Director of Pre-Award Research Support Services at Thomas Jefferson University. Ashley oversees pre-award operations, including proposal development, budget preparations, institutional reviews and approvals, and award acceptances. She can be reached at Ashley.Marciano@jefferson.edu.

Timothy Schailey, MS, is the Assistant Vice President, Research Support Services at Thomas Jefferson University. He oversees the operations of pre‐award, post-award non‐financial, contracts, outreach and education, and export controls. Additionally, he has been involved with NCURA since 2008. Tim serves as Treasurer, Chair of the Financial Management Committee (FMC), and a member of NCURA’s Executive Committee and its Board of Directors. He can be reached at Timothy.Schailey@jefferson.edu.

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

37

ORDER YOUR COPY!

L

eadership 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

FINISH

START

Pre-Award Data Analytics: Roadmap to Process Improvement

By Kimberly Griffin, Olivia Priedeman, and Tanvi Khot

Introduction Many, if not all, research institutions set goals and focus institutional efforts to increase the number of proposals and applications for grant and contract funding – a worthwhile endeavor. But how is that ever-increasing volume of work and proposals managed? What are pre-award leaders and management doing to accommodate that workload growth within their offices and teams? While many may recognize the need to manage workload across current staff and plan for the expansion of pre-award teams, not all institutions have mastered an effective way to strategize for this growth or apply data to inform business decisions.

“Measure, Analyze, Act” provides a baseline framework to leverage institutional data to tackle pre-award business challenges, one that is conducive to continuous improvement.

Measure In the first phase of this process, identify those operational metrics that best quantify the efficiency, effectiveness, cost, and risk of pre-award activities. Examples of the most common pre-award metrics are included below, but the specific data points to be measured should be driven by institutional priorities.

• Proposal Submission: Days complete submission is received before sponsor deadline, proposal review cycle times, “first pass yield” for proposal submissions • Award/Outgoing Subcontract Execution: Execution cycle times (by role), Risk Assessment outcomes, queue volume and aging • Award Setup: Cycle times, set-up holds, queue volume and aging • Non-Financial Post Award: Volume of Just In Time requests, progress reports, modifications, etc.

The metrics range from simple to complex depending on the data available and the intended audience. The Measure exercise may identify preferred, complex metrics for pre-award or a “nice to have.” But consider also what metrics may be more readily available, even if the data is not as complex. Begin with the basics and gradually add complexity.

The table below illustrates a more complex metric, followed by a more straightforward one in each area: More Complex

More Straightforward

Proposal review time

Proposal volume & demographics

Internal deadline compliance

Proposal win / hit rate

Negotiation turnaround time

Executed agreement volume & demographic information

Every institution will have varying levels of sophistication in their systems, ranging from a commercially available or homegrown pre-award system, to Excel and manual tracking mechanisms. No matter the source or sophistication, all metrics can be impactful with the proper analysis and application. And the Measure exercise can identify those “ideal state” pre-award metrics that you can work toward having in the future with improved data capture.

Whether you’re tackling a more straightforward or more complex analysis, including the element of time in your analysis will be key to seeing how the item you’ve measured has changed. Decide which unit of time is most meaningful for your analysis – annual, quarterly, monthly, or even daily trends can be visualized.

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

39

Analyze After determining what to measure and establishing methods to track the desired data, the next step is to analyze your findings.

The tools you choose for analyzing your data can range from the most accessible, such as Excel or Google Sheets, to more dashboard-friendly tools like Tableau or Microsoft’s PowerBI. Your university’s software licensing options, your and/or your team’s skillset, and your plan for distributing and sharing the analysis will help you determine which tool is right for you. But an advanced analytical toolset is not a prerequisite for effective analysis of pre-award metrics and data. The process can begin with whatever tools you have available now.

Next, confirming the intended audience informs how to structure an analysis. Potential audiences and use cases include administrators, who would be interested in a queue of their upcoming work. An administrative manager would likely be interested in seeing their whole team’s workload to support an analysis that will help them redistribute workload, assess their staffing needs, and improve customer service. Research office leadership might be most interested in tracking officewide progress against goals.

Consider your audience and structure your analysis to answer their major questions or meet their objectives.

The importance of analysis is in uncovering insights from data, offering critical information on root causes and trends.

As you refine your analysis, consider layering additional data points such as staffing levels, faculty headcount and key milestones in federal compliance and policy changes to draw meaningful connectivity and causality in your data. For example, maybe outgoing subaward turnaround time spiked considerably at a point in time in the past then leveled off – maybe the spike came after a change in Uniform Guidance, followed by the addition of new staff to the subawards team, which led to the leveling off. Thoroughly examine the data, patterns and correlations to drive strategic planning, decision-making and action.

Conclusion and Roadmap Leveraging pre-award data analytics is crucial for efficiently managing research administration portfolios and measuring performance across the grant lifecycle. To get started on pre-award metrics and analytics, consider the following questions: 1. Where are you now? Begin by assessing your current state. Identify the operational metrics that can quantify the efficiency, effectiveness, cost, and risk of your pre-award practices and processes.

2. What tools do you have to make informed decisions? Evaluate the systems and data sources available at both the departmental and institutional levels.

3. How will you prepare to design and operationalize? Follow the “Measure, Analyze, Act” cycle.

4. What will you use to measure, monitor, and adjust? Use the tools available to you and empower those around you to act on results. N Note: This article was adapted from our presentation at NCURA AM66.

Act To fully benefit from data measurement and analysis, it’s crucial to act on the insights gained to translate data into short- and long-term strategies, operations, and compliance.

For example, after examining current workload by staff and institutional volumes compared to previous years, what are the next steps for staffing?

• Redeploy staff into different tasks • Reorganize teams to meet process changes • Change portfolio or workload distributions based on portfolio weighting • Increase training of team members Research administrators use analyses to inform operational decisions.

These decisions could range from small tweaks, such as redistributing workload, reviewing individual portfolios, or fine-tuning processes, to larger-scale infrastructure adjustments such as reviewing internal processes, hiring additional staff, or redesigning organizational structure.

As your organization matures in its tracking of data related to research administration, colleagues from other units likely will reach out to you to learn more about the data they would like to get from you.

40

NCURA Magazine

| December 2024

Kimberly Griffin leads the Research Analytics team for Northwestern University’s Office for Research. Kim has more than 25 years combined experience in sponsored research, business intelligence and data analytics in higher education. Kim can be reached at kimberly.griffin@northwestern.edu.

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

Tanvi Khot is a Senior Associate in Huron’s Education & Research practice. She specializes in pre-award administrative, proposal development, and research administration transformation. Tanvi can be reached at tkhot@hcg.com.

STARTING STRONG A Young Professional’s Path in Research Administration

By Leah Wander and Carol Bitzinger

As we look to the horizon, it’s crucial that the field of research administration learns from and listens to the next generation coming into the profession. NCURA Magazine’s Carol Bitzinger caught up with Leah Wander, a newly minted research administrator at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, to gain her perspective on starting out in our field. We hope that those in leadership positions might consider having these conversations with their new and young professionals to gain insight on how to move our industry forward.

CB: How has your experience been acclimating into research administration? What experiences have you been able to draw from that have made the adjustment smoother?

LW: Coming from my undergraduate experience, it was a transition not only into research administration but also into full-time working life. I was in a BFA program and a dance major, but the transition has been surprisingly easy. My colleagues come from very different backgrounds in terms of education and

professional experiences, which made the intimidation factor lower. I did come in with some grants experience from interning at a nonprofit dance company in Chicago, which was a much smaller organization than my current organization. There has been a bit of an adjustment in terms of scales and the focus of the work: at the nonprofit, I was able to see more of–and be more hands-on with–the fundraising and grant administration. Being at a larger

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

41

organization now, with a much larger grants portfolio, it’s been a smooth transition because I was able to get that hands-on experience before starting. My current organization has a strong infrastructure, particularly with training, and it’s made it easy to immerse myself into everything there is to learn.

CB: You touched on the scale and infrastructure of your organization, and I understand you were essentially hired at the same time as several other new administrators within your organization. I’m curious how that’s impacted the relationship-building with your colleagues and supervisors.

LW: There has been a lot of hiring as my organization is going through a transition from cradle-to-grave administration to separate pre- and post-award. I was hired on the same day and started the same day as one of my colleagues, so we’re really in the same boat. There were a few others hired shortly before me and shortly after, and it’s made things so much less scary to have people a little bit ahead of me who can say “don’t freak out, this is going to seem really overwhelming, but you’ll be okay, we promise.” Those first couple weeks, I would sit in front of my computer with my eyes wide, thinking “oh gosh, I have no idea what any of this means.” Because there are so many recent hires, the community we have, and the strength of the training we have, I don’t feel like I’m going into research administration alone.

CB: I know you’re coming into the field in the midst of a big overhaul to Uniform Guidance, and I also recognize that we are in a profession that is all about adapting to changes and assessing how our processes can be improved. How have you seen your institution adapt to changes, and how have they been communicated?

LW: Within a large team, it’s a little intimidating to ask those small questions [when thinking about large changes within the industry or to policy], especially as a newer person. We have frequent department meetings where I feel like things are truly broken down as simplistically as possible. Specifics are teased out so that it feels like I can truly absorb the details. Along with that, our department is going through a major change where we're going to be divided into pre-award time and effort and post-award individuals instead of doing all of it as one, so that will allow us to be more of an expert in this specific kind of section of grant management, which is exciting. And I think that gives me the space to dive a little deeper into my specific area. I try to look into changes in my free time and ask the people that have been doing this for longer how they're keeping up-to-date.

CB: Building off of how information is communicated, and with you still in training, what would you say has been most useful in terms of understanding the rules and changes that are part of your work? What do you like? Is there anything you wish you had more guidance with?

LW: I’ve had lots of opportunities to watch training videos and rewatch department meetings where they were talking through changes and was able to shadow a lot of people, all of which have been extremely helpful. For me, the best thing is getting my hands on actual work and being in the systems, actually being the one to change the numbers.

Hands-on work is personally how I learn best, but there have been so many different ways that we can learn and different resources provided to suit all types of learners.

I think the shadowing aspect is really interesting too. I had a couple weeks of just purely training: learning from practice work, observing my supervisors, and then that transitioned into shadowing. That has been extremely helpful because there is a set way to do certain tasks, but people have their own little ways of getting things done. I saw I 42

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

could create my own routine and way that I want to conduct my work, and the more I can get my hands on grants [in post-award] and on submissions, the more things click.

I’ve learned the most from getting things wrong. My supervisors have emphasized “nothing that you do is gonna be detrimental; everything is fixable.” I've learned so much from having the support to try, make mistakes, and learn how to improve or fix them.

“ [I]T’S MADE THINGS SO MUCH LESS SCARY TO HAVE PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF ME WHO CAN SAY “DON’T FREAK OUT, THIS IS GOING TO SEEM REALLY OVERWHELMING, BUT YOU’LL BE OKAY, WE PROMISE.” CB: Yeah, I think having the freedom to fail is so huge in what we do and how we learn. Thinking about the bigger picture, what do you think is most important in terms of helping to usher in the next generation of research administrators and supporting their growth?

LW: The biggest thing that comes to mind is that a lot of people don’t know the profession exists. I was introduced to the field by someone in it, who I’ve known for a long time, and I don’t know if I would have realized how much you can do in this industry if it weren’t for her. Research administration really isn’t a major or minor for undergraduates. Being a BFA student, I knew that artists and performers apply for grants, but I didn’t know this was a career you could have. I’ve told so many people that I’m in research administration, and no one ever knows what that means. We need to think about how to make the profession visible and have young people gain awareness of the industry. One of the biggest ways to do that might be to help people understand how much you can carve at a niche within this field: if you’re interested in medicine, for example, you might be interested in research administration at a research hospital. But there are so many different avenues, which makes our field appealing. Knowing that I’m significantly on the younger end among my colleagues, there can be an intimidation factor starting out. While trying to make the field more visible, I think it’s also important to underscore that there’s a learning curve for everybody–and there’s a place for everybody. Different educational experiences and life experiences are so valuable, and that is a strength of our field. We all bring different perspectives and benefit from one another’s, and as a profession, research administration does a great job of bringing different perspectives together. N Leah Wander is a 2024 graduate of The Ohio State University. After receiving her BFA in Dance, and a minor in Arts Entrepreneurship, she began working as a Research Business Coordinator in the Finance and Sponsored Projects Office for Nationwide Children’s Hospital.

Carol Bitzinger, MA, is a Grants & Contracts Specialist in The Ohio State University College of Arts & Sciences. She serves as a co-contributing editor for NCURA Magazine and on the Young Professionals Council.

She can be reached at bitzinger.1@osu.edu.

Design Thinking and Contract Optimization: A New Horizon in Contract Drafting

By Phillip R. Boyce

I

mproving contract negotiation turnaround time in academic medical research has proven to be a complex and difficult problem. Some of the best solutions, like contract management software, are expensive and require enterprise-wide cooperation to implement. This article addresses an extremely powerful tool for reducing contract negotiation turnaround time known as contract optimization, which is simple, fast, and no cost. All it requires is curiosity and a willingness to think differently about how we draft contracts.

Contract optimization is the process of editing legal language in a contract to achieve what we could describe as a frictionless or more efficient contract document that attracts fewer revisions. As will be demonstrated below, even minor redlines that do not seem like a big problem in a single instance do, in the end, have a severe impact on productivity in the aggregate in a high-volume contract shop. Using design-based thinking in our approach to contract drafting may solve that problem, and it is not difficult to do; the harder part is training ourselves to think differently about our role as legal professionals.

Defining the Problem If you work as a negotiator in a busy contract shop at a large research institution, you will review hundreds of contracts a year, making thousands of revisions along the way. At that volume, patterns begin to emerge. One category of revisions consists of significant or substantive legal issues that genuinely and appropriately require our attention, such as adjusting liability language. However, there is a second category of revisions that involves repeatedly removing the same language that the institution cannot agree to, that no institution can agree to, and that everyone knows that no institution can agree to. Usually, these are phrases or words that somehow found their

way into the industry standard boilerplate and somehow, in defiance of all reason, remain there, although they are deleted every time.

Those phrases, words, and clauses are the problem we need to fix.

Confidentiality clauses provide a concrete example. Many, but not all, boilerplate confidentiality clauses still contain a passage that requires the party receiving the confidential information to return or destroy that information on termination of the agreement (“return/destruction clause”). This clause might make sense in a commercial setting where the information is a single document containing trade secrets, but in medical research, returning or destroying confidential information is often impossible. The definition of “confidential information” in these clauses would include broad swaths of business records that would be illegal for the institution to destroy. As a result, the same language directed to return and destruction may be deleted every single time they cross a contract negotiator’s desk, which is often.

So, what’s the big problem? It’s a simple edit that very few resist. Why would we spend time fussing over this detail?

Adding it All Up: The Not So Hidden Cost of Redlines In the aggregate, these types of revisions trigger a cascade of inefficiency that is a massive drain on limited human resources.

To understand how something so small could create so much trouble, we need to appreciate the strange non-Newtonian physics of high-volume contract negotiation. In the “normal” world, we expect that simple tasks (like a quick edit) will take a short amount of time and that complex tasks will take a longer amount of time; it is just common sense. However, in high-volume contract negotiation, even a tiny revision that will not be resisted NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

43

triggers a weeks-long process as redlines ping-pong between the parties.

The root cause is volume. A typical contract negotiator at an institution, clinical research organization (CRO), or sponsor works on as many as 50–80 contracts simultaneously. As a result, when a task arrives by email– whether it is simple or complex–it will sit in that negotiator’s work queue waiting for attention for days or weeks. When it is returned to the institution, it then goes into that person’s work queue, where it waits for a few days or weeks for attention. We can try to wish it away, but the empirical fact is that in this type of high-volume environment, even simple tasks move forward in slow motion.

As a result, the continued inclusion of the return/destroy clause that everyone knew would be removed each time added weeks to the turnaround time of that document for absolutely no gain.

To appreciate the true enormity of the problem, consider that this is not an isolated event. Many other delete-every-time provisions somehow manage to survive even though they are deleted every time. For example, clinical trial agreements include overly intrusive audit clauses, retrospective debarment clauses, confidentiality definitions that do not exclude results, injunctive relief, non-standard publication language, overly specific insurance clauses, and mandatory arbitration. Many contract templates used by sponsors, CROs, and universities are laden with these no-value, delete-every-time phrases and words.

Unfortunately, there is an even more insidious cost; one that is less direct, less obvious, but no less real. In any high throughput system, whether it is a contract shop or a coffee shop, there is a fine line between extremely busy and dysfunctional system overload. It is a measurable phenomenon in systems analysis called a tipping point–when a system operating above capacity transitions from busy but stable to frantic and unstable. We have all experienced what happens in a coffee shop when there are more customers coming through the door than coffee being handed over the counter. It creates a very predictable downward spiral into dysfunction. As customers, we get impatient; the staff begins to hurry and get upset, more customers pile in, the tension builds, mistakes are made, production slows even more, and eventually, that one customer starts to complain loudly. Ultimately, the system breaks down, and productivity declines.

High-volume contract shops, particularly those at universities, operate just at the edge of that tipping point most of the time. The volume of work is intense, and most contract teams operate at or above capacity every day. In an environment where resources are already stretched so thin, spending weeks deleting contract language that should never have been in the document in the first place is a constant pressure pushing that team toward the dysfunctional side of the tipping point.

We started by examining what looked like a very simple, slight revision and have traced it all the way through the system and demonstrated that these easily overlooked details have a huge impact globally on the operations of an entire contract shop, not just the turnaround time of that document.

The good news is that this problem is actually very easy to fix.

Solving the Problem: How to Optimize Contract Language The key to contract optimization is to think like a designer or engineer. If you ask an engineer to build a low-friction aerodynamic car, they start with their best guess on paper, make it, then actually test it in a wind tunnel. The process is iterative; they use the real data from the wind tunnel to refine the design. We can do the same, except that the car is our template contract, and the wind tunnel data are the redlines we get back.

The best way to optimize a contract is to assign someone in your organization the task of globally reviewing and keeping track of the redlines that are coming back on your template agreements. That person should not be a negotiator on the frontline struggling to keep up; rather, it should be someone specially assigned who has the time to slow down and look for trends 44

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

or hot spots. In a high-volume setting, patterns will emerge. If the same passage in your template is returned with proposed revisions 90% of the time, that is very solid evidence that the clause in question needs attention.

It does not necessarily mean that the passage needs to be changed. Instead, it may represent an unpopular legal position that your organization has knowingly and intentionally taken, in which case, the added negotiation time is part of the known cost of your unusual legal position. More often than not, these redline hot spots are likely to reveal the type of no-gain delete-every-time boilerplate junk phrases addressed above. Why not save yourself, and everyone, the weeks of wasted negotiation time by deleting or revising them?

In any high throughput system, whether it is a contract shop or a coffee shop, there is a fine line between extremely busy and dysfunctional system overload.

Alternatively, if the redlines that are coming back are routinely massive and broadly distributed throughout the agreement, this is usually a good indicator that your organization should consider completely rebuilding the template. This is a particularly common problem with newer or smaller organizations, where the document was drafted by someone who does not have the benefit of having already seen a huge sample of how this type of agreement is usually written. There are certainly times when custom drafting is required, but there is a strong incentive to stick close to established templates. In the strange non-Newtonian physics of high-volume contract negotiation, non-standard agreements are disruptive, whereas standard agreements capitalize on and leverage the existing processes. Why deliberately court delay and chaos when an expedient option is available?

Either way, the great thing about optimization is that it is entirely empirical.

You do not need to guess what will make your contract faster. They will tell you if you will listen.

The Final Word Contract optimization will not solve all our problems, and the idea of a perfectly frictionless contract is a non-attainable myth. There will always be redlines. But perfection is not the goal; improvement is the goal. University contract shops, which are frequently criticized for causing delays in the entire research startup process, are being forced to waste enormous amounts of time deleting these no-gain boilerplate clauses. The power to make the change often lies with sponsors and CROs; universities also originate a vast number of agreements, including subawards, collaboration agreements, data sharing agreements, and material transfer agreements. Even when we cannot make these changes ourselves, we can engage each other in rational conversations and strive to normalize the idea of design thinking and contract optimization. This is not just a contract team problem; these improvements will benefit all stakeholders. N Phil Boyce, Esq. is the founder of Boyce Life Sciences, LLC a mixed consulting and law practice that specializes in high-volume research contract negotiation, process improvement, and legal training. He can be reached at Phil@BoyceLifeSciences.com.

CRACKING

the Code: Intellectual Property Rights for International RMAs

By Maria Marti Prieto and Sia Gosheva-Oney

Research managers and administrators (RMAs) need to have a wide range of knowledge when it comes to contract administration and negotiation, including policy, regulations and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). Many of us (if not most) have not been to law school but, as the main contact point for contract negotiation, we need to be able to identify any non-standard clauses and raise awareness to the principal investigator as well as contact the technology transfer office and/or legal counsel, if necessary.

This becomes even trickier when negotiations are done by partners from across the big pond. Foreign entities face unique hurdles in Intellectual Property (IP) negotiations, especially when engaging with funding bodies that operate under a different legal framework.

Understanding such differences is essential to protecting IP while simultaneously ensuring compliance to national regulations.

Joint Ownership The EU and the USA approach IP rights and the negotiations thereof quite differently - in Europe, under programs like Horizon Europe (HEU),

there is a strong emphasis on joint ownership of IP and fair benefit-sharing among project partners. The funding agreement (HEU Grant Agreement) includes a default clause regulating joint ownership between partners.

This can be overruled if partners decide it otherwise in a separate agreement, but there is a clear priority to provide a basis for negotiation between partners. In addition, to avoid any IP infringement and guarantee a proper technological project implementation, consortium partners must guarantee ownership of their background IP and grant access to other parties as needed for project completion or to exploit results. All these obligations are explicitly mentioned in the Grant Agreement in projects with multiple institutions involved, including the requirement of setting up an agreement between all collaborating institutions (consortium agreement) that will regulate all aforementioned points and to provide a list of results ownership in the last project report. Perhaps for this reason, RMAs used to the Horizon Europe regulations may be surprised to see that joint ownership is not always mentioned in US (sub-)awards. Our interpretation of this – and here we would like to hear the opinion from our NCURA colleagues – is that not all projects have planned for joint intellectual property, especially before the actual research has started.

Postponing this conversation until a joint invention has been produced can contribute to speed up negotiations, notably if the chances for

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

45

IP-rich outcomes are low. On the other hand, should such a situation occur, discussing the terms of joint ownership after the invention could lead to a longer negotiation time or even potentially to disputes. So which approach is better? If you ask us, we will reply with one of the most beloved NCURA community mottos–“It depends”; in this case, depending on which type of project the researchers are set out to do, one path may prove more beneficial than the other.

The Role of Funding Agencies Other aspects of IPRs are also addressed differently by EU and US funding agencies. One practical example can be found in 37 CFR 401.14: the request that inventions made with federal funding in the US are reported within 2 months so that the US government can retain a license. Failure to comply may lead to the Government obtaining title of said invention. Projects under the HEU program must also report any research outputs, including patents, but with the double aim of providing a quantifiable measure of the impact of the funded research and of amplifying the chances of future exploitation through public dissemination. HEU regulation clearly states that the granting authority does not obtain ownership of the results produced under the funded research. In recent years, the EU has made an innovation push which has translated into a new contractual obligation for grantees to exploit the results it owns, or to have them exploited by another legal entity.

If despite the best effort for exploitation no uptake happens within a year after the end of the project, then participants must use the Horizon Results Platform to make exploitable results visible to potential interested parties.

With this new introduction, EU policy makers aim at further strengthening the link between public funded research and economic and societal impact, not an unsimilar goal as the one of the Bayh-Dole Act from 1980.

Both EU and US frameworks have relatively similar instruments that would allow for granting authorities to grant licenses under certain circumstances. The March-In Rights (37 CFR 401.6) are very well-known in our community, but interestingly, some HEU grants have additional exploitation obligations in case of public emergency, where the grantees must grant for

a limited period of time, non-exclusive licences—under fair and reasonable conditions—to their results to legal entities that need the results to address the public emergency, if requested by the granting authority. In this case, instead of a clause applicable to all federally funded grants, like the March-in rights, such clause appears only in certain grants, depending on the funding opportunity announcement, also known as the HEU call conditions.

The Bottom Line Negotiating IP rights as a foreign entity is complex and requires an understanding of different US national approaches. While the EU emphasizes joint ownership and access rights, the US focuses on commercialization with government intervention when necessary. When negotiating IP terms as a foreign entity, Region VIII RMAs should pay particular attention to how ownership is defined, who has access to what data and materials, and what obligations exist after a project comes to an end. With EU funding bodies, on the other hand, the emphasis is on ensuring that the benefits of IP are shared across all partners.

It seems as there are legal frameworks and standard practices to handle the negotiations of IPRs. One question however remains unanswered, namely how can awareness among researchers be raised about IP rights?

This is in particular important in the case of European institutions, where more often than not, the concept of further exploitation of the conducted research, and thereof resulting intellectual properties, are not as widely emphasized as compared to the USA. Therefore, raising awareness among researchers, particularly in Europe, will be key to ensuring that research outputs are fully exploited and that IP rights are appropriately managed.

And finally, this will foster further collaborations between US and European researchers and will make our lives, as RMAs, easier. N

References

NEGOTIATING IP RIGHTS AS A FOREIGN ENTITY IS COMPLEX AND REQUIRES AN UNDERSTANDING OF DIFFERENT US NATIONAL APPROACHES. 46

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

If Necessity is the Mother of Invention, then Who’s You Daddy? A brief overview of intellectual property rights in academia. Amy Spacer. NCURA Magazine.

December2015_NCURA_Mag.pdf (rackcdn.com) March-In Rights Under the Bayh-Dole Act: Draft Guidance. Congressional Research Service.

2024. IF12582 (congress.gov) Horizon Results Platform. “Making Results Matter!” Horizon Results Platform | EU Funding & Tenders Portal (europa.eu) Cornell Law School. 37 CFR § 401.14 - Standard patent rights clauses. 37 CFR § 401.14 Standard patent rights clauses. | Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) Maria Marti Prieto is a research administrator from Barcelona, who now lives in Switzerland. In her current role at EU GrantsAccess, a joint office of the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich, she advises researchers regarding competitive funding and negotiates research contracts. She is also passionate about innovation and technology development. You can reach her at maria.marti@sl.ethz.ch.

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

Research Administration in Africa

Embracing the Future Evaluating the Next Big Thing in E-Learning Technologies for Uganda’s Public Universities

By Elvis Muyanja

Introduction As the world shifts toward digital solutions, Uganda's higher education system stands at a pivotal crossroads. E-learning technologies promise to transform traditional educational methods, making learning more accessible and effective. This article evaluates the current state of e-learning in Uganda's public universities, identifies potential benefits and challenges, and discusses key factors influencing the integration of these technologies.

The Promise of E-Learning E-learning encompasses a range of digital tools that facilitate online learning experiences. The potential benefits for Uganda's public universities are significant: 1. Increased Accessibility: E-learning bridges geographical gaps, enabling students in remote areas to access quality educational materials.

2. Enhanced Engagement: Digital platforms incorporate multimedia content, making learning more engaging through interactive quizzes and gamified experiences.

3. Personalized Learning: E-learning allows for differentiated instruction, helping educators tailor their approaches to individual student needs.

4. Resource Efficiency: Digital resources reduce reliance on physical textbooks, making education more sustainable and cost-effective.

Current State of E-Learning in Uganda's Public Universities Despite its potential, the adoption of e-learning in Uganda's public universities faces challenges. Recent studies show that approximately 35% of faculty

regularly integrate e-learning tools into their curricula. Barriers include: • Infrastructure Deficits: Many universities lack reliable internet access and stable electricity, particularly in rural areas.

• Limited Faculty Training: Over 60% of faculty members report inadequate training in digital pedagogy.

• Inequitable Access: Disparities in access to devices and internet connectivity create gaps between urban and rural students.

By addressing barriers and diversifying funding sources, Uganda can pave the way for a more inclusive educational future.

Case Studies Highlighting Innovation Despite these challenges, several public universities demonstrate successful e-learning integration.

Case Study 1: Makerere University, Kampala Makerere University has made significant strides in adopting e-learning technologies, launching an online learning platform with a variety of courses. Faculty training in digital pedagogy has led to increased student engagement and participation in online courses.

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

47

Case Study 2: Kyambogo University, Kampala Kyambogo University has implemented a blended learning model combining classroom instruction with online components. Investments in digital infrastructure have improved student satisfaction and attendance rates, showcasing the effectiveness of flexible learning options.

Preparing for the Next Big Thing To prepare for the evolving landscape of e-learning, several strategies can be employed: 1. Embrace Adaptive Learning Technologies: Institutions should explore platforms that customize content based on student performance, enhancing engagement.

2. Invest in Virtual and Augmented Reality: These technologies can provide immersive learning experiences in fields like medicine and engineering.

3. Promote Lifelong Learning Models: Offering modular courses allows students to continually update their skills and knowledge.

4. Develop Data Analytics Capabilities: Investing in tools to track student engagement can help educators refine their teaching methods.

5. Foster Community Partnerships: Collaborations with local businesses can enhance program relevance and provide financial support.

6. Create a Culture of Innovation: Encouraging experimentation within educational practices will help institutions adapt to future challenges.

Funding Mechanisms for E-Learning Technologies Funding for e-learning initiatives can be sourced through various mechanisms: 1. Government Grants and Subsidies: The Ugandan government can allocate funds specifically for e-learning initiatives, ensuring compliance with educational standards.

48

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

2. International Donor Agencies: Organizations like UNESCO and the World Bank provide grants for educational technology projects.

3. Private Sector Partnerships: Collaborations with tech firms can lead to sponsorships or donations.

4. Alumni Contributions: Engaging alumni to financially support e-learning projects can provide a sustainable funding source.

5. Crowdfunding Campaigns: Institutions can use crowdfunding platforms to raise funds for specific e-learning initiatives.

6. Tuition Fee Adjustments: A nominal increase in tuition fees, earmarked for technological advancements, can be considered, provided there is transparency in usage.

Conclusion E-learning technologies represent the next big thing in education for Uganda's public universities. By embracing these digital solutions, Uganda can improve educational access and outcomes. While challenges exist, successful case studies highlight the potential for transformation. By addressing barriers and diversifying funding sources, Uganda can pave the way for a more inclusive educational future. Embracing this digital shift is essential for the growth of the country’s higher education sector in the 21st century, ensuring that educators and students thrive in this evolving landscape. N

Elvis Muyanja, a Web/Software Developer at National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC) in Kampala Uganda, is a graduate of Hons Bachelors Degree of Science in Computer Science at Botswana International University of Science & Technology. Elvis’s responsibilities at NCDC include creating fresh, new, original content for all the online platforms for the University, user interface designs, and developing and maintaining websites and web-based applications. Elvis can be reached at elvo8k@gmail.com.

And Now for Something Completely Different

A 2025 Pre-Award Survival Guide

By Andre L. Walker

T

hose of a certain age will get the Monty Python reference. The British troupe has a cult following for their 1970s sketch comedy television show “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” and for movies such as “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” and more recently, with inspiring the hit musical “Spamalot.” A staple of their early routine was a sketch entitled “And now for something completely different.” In it, a staid news presenter delivering a monologue would be revealed to be wearing only underwear, to be roasting on a spit, or to be engulfed in a sudden explosion. In each case, the viewer was led to expect one thing, but was instead presented with something absurdly different. It is in the spirit of Monty Python, that this article will offer recommendations, minus the absurdity, to prepare you for Pre-Award Research Administration in 2025.

The Road Ahead By now, we are all familiar with the challenges on the horizon for our profession. Artificial intelligence (AI), the National Security Intelligence Memorandum (NSPM-33), data security, export control, and heightened campus security, among others, have been covered in great detail elsewhere.

Proliferating federal mandates and sponsor guidelines are nothing new in a business where change is the only constant. However, these expanding requirements are combined with ever increasing numbers of applications and a continued coarsening of communication in everyday life. What does

all this mean for the Research Administration? As noted in the most recent Research Administrator Stress Perception Survey (RASPerS), Research Administration is a stressful job, and the demands show no sign of lessening (Shambrook, 2023). So, rather than present a laundry list of things to know in 2025, this article will provide some ideas for dealing with them.

Compassion In their book Compassionomics: The Revolutionary Scientific Evidence that Caring Makes a Difference (Trzeciak & Mazzarelli, 2019) the authors test the hypothesis that compassion in medicine matters for the recipients through better outcomes, for the process through higher quality and lower costs, and for the provider through a better work environment. Through a systematic review of existing studies on compassion in the clinical workplace, they find that the introduction of compassion results in better healthcare.

Trzeciak and Mazzarelli define compassion as “an emotional response to another’s pain or suffering involving an authentic desire to help” (p. 41).

Healthcare workers are likely among the most empathetic members of society, but this highlights an important distinction. Empathy is an emotion, an internal feeling. Compassion is an action. As Trzeciak and Mazzarello suggest, it is action based on empathy, i.e. compassion, that really matters.

While the focus of the book is the impact compassion can have on the NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

49

delivery of health care, replace ‘pain or suffering’ with ‘confusion or distress,’ and the definition fits neatly into the realm of research administration.

Lest you think that research administration does not involve such emotional labor, recall the last time you reassured a faculty member that a proposal deadline could be met, despite late-stage changes, or patiently guided them through a confusing aspect of an application process, or confidently but gently told them that their gambit would be unallowable under your institution’s guidelines. There is no mountain of data (yet) to support the hypothesis that compassion improves outcomes in research administration, but it rings true to this experienced administrator.

How Compassion Works In their study, Trzceciak and Mazzarelli identify four mechanisms of action for compassion in improving patient care: physiological effects, psychological effects, enhanced patient self-care, and increased quality of care. For physiological effects, human connection matters, and they find evidence of a calming effect and lower blood pressure when compassion is displayed, as well as a building of trust. Psychological benefits of compassion manifest as a relief of anxiety and psychological pain. “Compassion makes the unbearable bearable” (p. 120). Patient self-care is motivated by compassion. Where the “working alliance” between the patient and their doctor can be more impactful than the treatment itself, compassion can build trust. If the patient trusts their physician, they will more likely follow the physician’s suggestions, and adherence to medications leads to better patient outcomes. Lastly, compassion impacts healthcare quality in two ways. First, the authors find a positive correlation between compassion and organization excellence, with low compassion associated with carelessness and high compassion associated with meticulousness. Second, those acting with compassion are viewed as more competent by their patients. Thus, compassionate healthcare workers make fewer mistakes, and their patients are more satisfied with the interaction.

Beyond patient care, the authors find that compassionate care improves patient experience, which drives healthcare revenue. Similarly, they find that higher levels of compassion are associated with increased patient adherence and fewer medical errors, which reduce costs. And they find that absenteeism is decreased, which also reduces costs, when there is a culture of compassion in the workplace. Beyond the dollars and cents, they also find tangible benefits for employee well-being. Whereas overwork and a lack of human connection can lead to burnout, compassionate relationships with colleagues is protective against burnout. Showing compassion to others leaves the giver with good feelings, and helping others can help alleviate stress.

Compassion Can Be Learned For all the benefits that the authors find that flow from compassion, they also find that it is within anyone’s reach to be more compassionate. However, they do identify a key aspect necessary to learn compassion: intentionality.

One must decide to do it, then practice it. With practice, a capacity to be compassionate grows. The authors cite MRI studies indicating that such practice changes the practitioner’s brain. They note, “every person can get better at showing compassion for others, at least a little bit” (p. 276).

How Compassion Works in Research Administration Pre-Award Research Administrators are the “front door” to the Sponsored Programs Office (SPO) on a campus. Often, we are the first SPO personnel with whom a faculty has contact at the start of the grant lifecycle, and we can become the “face” of research administration on their campus. We have a unique positionality to set the tone for a culture of compassion.

It begins with quality. Our level of compassion impacts the quality of service we provide as a Research Administrators. In a field where attention to detail is imperative, it is reassuring to know that higher levels of compassion are associated with meticulousness. We do a better job if we care.

50

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

Next, there is trust, and its importance cannot be overstated. Faculty trust us with applications where their future success is hanging in the balance.

They rely on us to provide sound guidance through the process. As noted

by Trzeciak and Mazzarelli, compassion communicates competence and inspires quality communication. If we have earned faculty trust by showing that we care, then we can build a “working alliance” where our guidance is sought and our recommendations are followed. With trust, faculty are also more willing to share with us details of upcoming projects and involve the SPO earlier in the process, viewing us as a help rather than a hindrance.

A simple gesture, such as starting each interaction with “How can I help?” can go a long way.

There is no mountain of data (yet) to support the hypothesis that compassion improves... research administration, but it rings true.

Then, there is the business side of things. Excellent science wins grants, but compassionate Pre-Award Research Administration can help on the margins by identifying errors that can lead triage or return-without-review. While the odds of funding for any application are typically much less than 50%, the odds of funding for rejected or triaged application are zero. So, more meticulous reviews can help increase the number of grants won, by increasing the number of applications that make it through to peer review. Each successful application is not only a win for the faculty, but it also burnishes our institution’s prestige and provides the indirect costs to support our jobs.

Beyond the dollars and cents, compassion can make our workplaces better for us as employees. Research administration is a stressful profession with ever-present deadlines for high-stakes applications and campus colleagues who may not be on their best behavior. It is little wonder that employee turnover is a constant problem. Introducing compassion into the workplace can lower the temperature and make it a more pleasant place for all.

Conclusion As Shambrook (2023) found, most of us are in this profession because we want to contribute, i.e. to help. So, since we are all predisposed to put our empathy into action, let’s commit to spreading compassion in 2025. You will be unlikely to encounter “The Knights who say ‘Ni,’” but you will be better prepared to help faculty when the policy says ‘no.’ N References Shambrook, J. (2023). RASPerS: Prevalence of Occupational Stress and Associated Factors in RMA Professionals. In S. Kerridge, S. Poli, and M. Yang-Yoshihara (Eds.), The Emerald Handbook of Research Management and Administration Around the World (pp. 373– 383). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-701-820231030 Trzeciak, S., & Mazzarelli, A. (2019). Compassionomics: The revolutionary scientific evidence that caring makes a difference (1st edition). Studer Group.

Andre L. Walker, MBA, MA, CRA, is Senior Sponsored Development Manager in the central sponsored programs office at The University of Chicago. He is currently pursuing a doctoral degree in Higher Education Administration in the College of Education at Purdue University. Andre is a past contributor to NCURA Magazine and Research Management Review. He also previously served on NCURA’s Financial Management Committee and Pre-Award Neighborhood Committee, and he served as a Contributing Editor for NCURA Magazine. He can be reached at andre.walker@uchicago.edu.

• Administering Research Contracts • Compensation-Personal Services: Documenting and Supporting Salary Charges to Federal Award • Crafting Fully Compliant Budgets • Financial Management of Sponsored Program Awards • How to Effectively Manage an Audit • Improving Efficiencies: Assessing the Sponsored Research Operation • International Research Collaborations • A Primer on Business Continuity • A Primer on Export Controls • Understanding & Managing Sponsored Program Administration at Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions

A Research Administrator’s User Guide to Internal Controls — Part II

By Adrienne Larmett and Roseann Luongo

I

nternal controls are an organization’s collective activities, plans, attitudes, policies and efforts to provide reasonable assurance that the organization will achieve its strategic objectives. In this article, we discuss internal controls in sponsored research, which were introduced in Part I (Oct/Nov 2024 NCURA Magazine), including implementation, assessments, common controls breakdowns and improvement opportunities Internal Controls in Practice in Sponsored Research We see internal controls implemented across the sponsored research award lifecycle in numerous ways, including: • Research enterprise authority and ownership: There is a clearly established “owner” for sponsored research and sponsored research administration who establishes a tone at the top and commitment to compliance and integrity • Roles and responsibilities: Key stakeholder accountabilities across the research enterprise (e.g., PI, department administrators, central research administration, university leadership) are defined, formalized, acknowledged, understood, and publicly available • Risk assessment: Risk assessments, whether compliance focused, or enterprise focused (i.e., Enterprise Risk Management) inquire of sponsored research, have identified and prioritized key sponsored research risks, and may have formal mitigation plans and metrics in place to monitor progress • Policies and procedures: Policies/procedures, protocols and guidance 52

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

that address the research enterprise practices are documented and formalized, reflective of current guidance and regularly reviewed and updated (if applicable) • Additional control activities: Processes include control practices such as segregation of duties (i.e., no single individual has control over a transaction from start to finish; minimizes risks of fraud and error), reconciliations (e.g., monthly reviews of grants expenditures) and physical controls (e.g., locks, multi-factor authentication, key card entry) • Communication and training: Regular communication and education to the research community regarding the people, process, infrastructure and institutional expectations for leading, participating and administering extramural research • Monitoring: Regular monitoring or internal audits and assessments of research administration units, polices and protocols, and transactions to independently verify the controls’ effectiveness occur on a regular basis Internal Control Assessments and Common Control Breakdowns So, when do these internal controls come into play? They are essential during audits, providing a basis for evaluating the organization's processes and financial records. Sponsor pre-audit reviews are also critical, guaranteeing everything is in order before external audits occur. Internal reviews conducted by the organization serve as proactive measures to identify and rectify potential issues. Assessments, including gap and overlap analyses, are indispensable tools for continuous improvement. By integrating these controls

into these processes, research administrators can uphold their operations’ integrity, foster transparent practices and meet regulatory body demands effectively.

Control breakdowns often occur in specific areas within the organization, leading to vulnerabilities compromising operational integrity and compliance. One common source of breakdowns arises from knowledge gaps, leading to unintentional errors. Another significant challenge arises from malicious intent, often exhibited by bad actors within the organization who intentionally bypass or manipulate controls for personal gain. Moreover, poorly designed controls contribute significantly to breakdowns. This happens when controls fail to address key objectives comprehensively or are incomplete, leaving critical aspects unguarded. In these instances, control breakdowns can emerge, highlighting the importance of implementing controls and ensuring their effectiveness and alignment with organizational objectives to prevent these breakdowns and maintain a secure operational environment.

Assessments and reviews are helpful to proactively identify myriad issues and related recommendations, including: (see table on next page).

Internal Controls Implementation Implementing internal controls within the organization is a multifaceted process and relies on participation at all levels. The Institute of Internal Auditors Three Lines of Defense Model , (The Institute of Internal Auditors, 2020) (ERM Initiative Staff, 2018) is a helpful framework for organizations of all sizes. It enables them to identify the most effective structures and processes to achieve objectives while ensuring robust governance and risk management.

• First Line – Operational Management: The model's first line, often called “the Front Line,” represents the tactical level. Here, process owners assume responsibility for managing risks, overseeing day-to-day operations and designing and implementing controls to mitigate potential issues. In Sponsored Research we may see this within departments, where operations are guided by specific controls encompassing a range of measures, including established guidelines, toolkits and specialized functional and system training. These elements collectively work to enforce compliance and operational efficiency within individual departments • Second Line – Monitoring and Oversight: Managers at this operational level are tasked with developing policies, tools and systems, ensuring compliance, and conducting monitoring activities to safeguard the organization's integrity. In Sponsored Research we may see this within central operations, where activities are monitored through monthly forums, ongoing reconciliation processes and organization-wide tracking mechanisms. Regular reports are generated and presented to leadership committees every month, offering insights into the overall compliance status. For more complex issues, dedicated resources are allocated to address challenges effectively. Central monitoring involves using departmental dashboards and scorecards, enabling continuous performance evaluation. After-the-fact reviews provide valuable feedback, leading to targeted training initiatives derived from departmental monitoring • Third Line – Internal Audit: This line operates strategically, offering independence, objectivity and expert advice. To optimize this model, organizations must diligently ensure these three lines of defense are effectively established and harmonized, fostering a robust system of checks and balances that fortify the organization against potential risks and challenges, thereby ensuring its sustainable success.

This model recognizes that everyone in the organization has a role in supporting an effective and efficient internal control environment and identifies key responsibilities to ensure internal controls are implemented and rigorously evaluated and adapted.

Organizations can capitalize on the appropriate balance by aligning internal controls with their risk tolerance, which will help achieve regulatory compliance and operational efficiency.

Continuous Improvement and Finite Resources: A Balancing Act Managing internal controls is far from static. It's a dynamic and iterative process that requires ongoing evaluation to ascertain effectiveness in tandem with monitoring the external regulatory landscape and shifting organizational objectives and risks. When assessments reveal control breakdowns, new risks or changing risk priorities, organizations must be prepared to adapt, potentially necessitating changes in their control mechanisms to maintain adequate risk management and compliance. This agile approach enables internal controls to remain responsive to evolving challenges, preserving the organization's ability to operate efficiently and securely.

Balancing continuous improvement with organizational resources is crucial to managing research operations and compliance as most organizations have finite resources. The establishment, implementation and maintenance of effective and efficient internal controls demand significant resources and effort. Organizations must begin by assessing their risk tolerance (i.e., the degree of risk the organization is willing to endure) related to their research strategy and activities, as risk tolerance serves as a guiding principle, informing the organization's decisions regarding the allocation of resources.

This encompasses investments in advanced systems, appropriate tools and skilled personnel and the development of comprehensive policies and procedures. Organizations can capitalize on the appropriate balance by aligning internal controls with their risk tolerance, which will help achieve regulatory compliance and operational efficiency. This strategic approach safeguards the organization against potential risks and errors. It fosters a research environment where compliance is seamlessly integrated into daily operations, promoting a culture of integrity and accountability. N References Three Lines of Defense Model (2020). The Institute of Internal Auditors. www.theiia.org/globalassets/site/about-us/advocacy/three-lines-model-updated.pdf COSO’s Take on the Three Lines of Defense (2018). ERM - Enterprise Risk Management Initiative. https://erm.ncsu.edu/resource-center/cosos-take-on-the-three-lines-ofdefense/#:~:text=The%20Three%20Lines%20of%20Defense%20Model%201%20First,3% 20Third%20Line%20of%20Defense%3A%20Internal%20Audit%20 Adrienne Larmett, MBA, CRA, is a principal in Baker Tilly’s risk advisory practice, with more than 17 years of professional consulting experience. She specializes in providing services to research institutions, working with clients to provide guidance in the areas of internal audit, risk advisory, enterprise risk management, compliance, and fraud investigation related services. She can be reached at adrienne.larmett@bakertilly.com.

Roseann Luongo is an Education + Research Senior Director for Huron Consulting Group. She is a research compliance professional with extensive experience in regulation interpretation and analysis. She has more than 19 years of experience in research compliance and administration, including risk assessment, policy and process development, compliance concern investigation, and conflicts of interest analysis and management. She can be reached at rluongo@hcg.com.

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

53

Research Administration in Europe

Harnessing Weak Signals and Global Trends to Shape Research Collaboration & Support Strategies

By Jérôme Rickmann

B

eing prepared for “what’s coming next” is the name of the game in office politics and strategy development alike. As research managers, we gain a lot by actively engaging in our university’s strategy processes. One tool, which has become invaluable at our institution, is betting on the collective “smarts” of our community.

University community workshops can play a pivotal role in supporting strategic foresight processes within higher education institutions, particularly in the context of shaping research collaboration and support. These workshops provide a collaborative platform for stakeholders to collectively gather insights from different parts of the organization, analyze emerging trends, interpret their implications, and identify strategic responses. By engaging diverse expertise and perspectives within the university community, such workshops facilitate the proactive shaping of strategies to address future challenges and capitalize on emerging opportunities.

Practical Implementation in Global Collaboration Trends Consider the recent outcomes of internal university workshops focused on global collaboration trends, showcasing the practical application of harnessing weak signals and larger global trends in the realm of research collaboration and support. These workshops delved into various significant dimensions, including geopolitical, demographic, cultural, technological, and environmental shifts, specifically in the context of research collaboration and support.

In this example, the workshops provided a platform to capture and explore weak signals and larger global trends. The focus on geopolitical tensions, the erosion of the higher education brand, and the rise of digital research tools played a crucial role in illuminating the forces shaping the future landscape of research collaboration. To be more concrete: in a rapidly evolving global landscape, European institutions are facing direct challenges stemming from global tensions, particularly between China and the USA. These challenges have direct implications for how European institutions navigate the politicization of research collaboration and align with the evolving expectations surrounding research security.

Engagement of Diverse Stakeholders The workshops effectively brought together a diverse set of stakeholders, including university leadership, research administrators, managers, academic researchers, and support staff. This diversity of expertise and 54

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

perspectives facilitated comprehensive analyses of identified trends and weak signals, enriching the strategic foresight process with valuable insights and expertise. They also help research managers to develop a good sense of where to “their” organization is running. Good research administration requires the ability to adapt to “big picture thinking.”

Strategic Responses and Action Plans Culminating from these workshops were a landscape of insights and trends which will serve as input for formulating strategic responses and action plans to navigate challenges and leverage opportunities. At the same time, involving the larger community, serves to create understanding and buy-in for strategic responses, effectively addressing geopolitical uncertainties, talent attraction and retention, technological shifts, climate change research priorities, and resilience in the face of global disruptions.

Navigating Global Collaboration Trends: Implications and Strategies for Research Collaboration and Support In response to these challenges, proactive and collaborative approaches are essential. Harnessing weak signals and global trends, as exemplified by the outcomes of internal university workshops and their subsequent preparation of strategic responses, demonstrates the potential for shaping effective research collaboration and support strategies. The outcomes of these workshops exemplify how the proactive analysis and interpretation of weak signals and global trends support the strategic foresight processes of universities in preparing for the challenges and opportunities in their research collaboration and support endeavors. These practical examples provide valuable insights into the proactive shaping of strategies within the realm of research collaboration and support, leading for example in our case to strong support for impactful and resilient collaboration between Finland and the USA. N

Jérôme Rickmann, PhD, is Senior Advisor, Global Engagement at Aalto University in Finland. He serves European Contributing Editor for NCURA Magazine. He can be reached at Jerome.rickmann@aalto.fi.

Staying Ahead Without Falling Behind Navigating the Research Administration Landscape at a Predominantly Undergraduate Institution

By Carolina Pizarro

L

ast year, I embarked on a new career path, when I joined Barry University’s grants team. I had previously worked in higher education, but never in research administration and never at a Predominantly Undergraduate Institution (PUI). Taking on a new vocation in a novel environment presented a steep learning curve; and yet, I was eager to embrace the challenge. Instead of specializing in one area of the field as one would do at a larger institution, working at a PUI taught me a little bit of everything all at once. It wasn’t better or worse at a smaller institution. It wasn’t more or less challenging; it was just different.

Now, as I look back, I realize this year has taught me a lot. Research administration is a constantly evolving profession. There is always something new to learn and there are always difficult questions to answer. There are changes around every corner. Changes in funding programs and sponsor regulations. Changes in the technologies that advance research as well as those that assist administrators who support it. The only real constant in research administration is our motto: It depends.

Regardless of one’s background, professional goals, or tenure, research administrators face the same challenge: How do we prepare for the future?

To stay abreast of challenges, we must adopt a proactive approach, positioning ourselves to meet the unknown with as much preparation as possible. From my perspective at a PUI, here are a few strategies I’ve learn for staying ahead without falling behind.

Continuous Education Continuous education is critical for staying relevant in research administration.

The environment is ever-changing, and the key to keeping up is never to stop learning. Over the past year, I discovered a wealth of resources available to research administrators—many of which are free.

Workshops are valuable resources for both new and experienced research administrators. NYU’s RAD (Research Administration Demonstration) Series is a valuable free resource held during lunchtime throughout the calendar year. These virtual sessions cover various topics and are perfect for onboarding and professional development. Sponsored Research |Administrators International (SRAI) offers hour-long sessions called Coffee Talks which are virtual discussions on current topics in research administration or soft skills. The National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA) also offers YouTube Tuesday videos—short, focused presentations on a variety of subjects. All of these are excellent resources for the newbie and the veteran alike.

Many professional organizations offer training courses with a variety of options. Whether you're new to the field or have years of experience, there

is something for everyone. Courses like the National Organization of Research Development Professional (NORDP)’s RD 101: Introduction to Research Development, SRAI’s Level-Up courses, NCURA’s Pre- and PostAward Fundamentals workshops, and CITI Program courses have been particularly useful for me.

Conferences are another invaluable resource. I can't overstate the importance of NCURA’s Annual and Regional conferences. These gatherings allow

Commit to continuous education, fostering collaborative relationships, embracing technology, and cultivating an adaptable mindset position for long-term success. experts to discuss the latest developments, share ideas, and troubleshoot common challenges. Moreover, they offer the opportunity to meet a network of collaborative, supportive research administrators who can be resources for years to come. While the challenges PUIs face are different from those of larger institutions, conferences help bridge this gap, highlighting both the similarities and differences.

Federal agencies are also a great source of free educational materials.

They provide webinars, podcasts, application guides, and general grant writing tips that help keep us informed about funding trends, priorities, and opportunities. Grants.gov’s Grants 101 site is a great starting point if you are new to the federal funding world.

With this wealth of available opportunities, there is bound to be something for everyone, even you. And with continuous education and professional development, you will stay ahead of the curve.

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

55

NOTABLE PRACTICES

H

as there ever been a time in research administration when so many new compliance changes loom on the horizon, coupled with uncertainty surrounding the details of how, and when, requirements will be implemented?

In October 2024 we saw the most comprehensive update to the Uniform Guidance since its original implementation in 2014, but questions remain about the timing and impact of some of the changes.

NSPM-33 promised some level of harmonization in the type, format, and timing of information Institutions and researchers need to disclose to federal sponsors, but will that ever become a reality? The Chips and Science Act adds whole new layers of training, monitoring, reporting and certification requirements. Do our Institutions have the appropriate resources, staff, and systems in place to implement these requirements?

As workload increases and many institutions struggle to hire and retain experienced research administrators, can technology help us streamline workload? What opportunities might there be to use AI tools to manage high volume, low-risk tasks, so that we can free staff up to do more analytical, higher risk work? What impact might placing reliance on these tools have on the way we have traditionally trained the next generation of research administrators?

Luckily, now more than ever, our professional organizations and some federal sponsors are leveraging technology to quickly and effectively push out timely and topical information and provide training opportunities to the research administration community. In addition to opportunities to participate in live, on-line, conferences, slides and sometimes recordings are made available after the session. This allows us to provide high quality, low cost, training to a wide audience, with the added benefit of being able to reuse the information and access it in ways and at times that work best for us. NCURA of course offers a fantastic range of resources to the community, including webinars, publications, and workshops. Some of my other favorite resources include NIH and NSF virtual webinars and conferences and resources from COGR and the FDP meetings. In times of change it’s good to know that these organizations are there to support us every step of the way! N Tracey Fraser is Senior Director, Office of Contracts & Grants Administration at UCLA. She serves on the Select Committee of Peer Programs. She can be reached at tracey.fraser@research.ucla.edu.

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.

56

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

Building Collaborative Relationships Collaborative relationships are crucial in research administration, both with fellow administrators and with funding agencies. One of the best ways to connect with others in the profession is through listservs. Communities like CLASP and RESADM-L are where members accumulate knowledge, share experiences, ask questions, and even voice frustrations. The level of collaboration and willingness to help one another is remarkable, making these listservs essential for staying connected.

Mentorship is another valuable form of collaboration. Organizations like NCURA, NORDP, SRAI, and FL-RDA offer mentoring programs that provide benefits to both mentors and mentees. At PUIs, where teams tend to be smaller, building strong mentor relationships outside your institution is especially important. Building a mentor network of professionals with diverse backgrounds and expertise can offer invaluable guidance and support when you need it most.

Program Officers also play a vital role in the collaborative process and are a key relationship for the successful research administrator. In my brief time in this field, I’ve had the opportunity to meet with several Program Officers from different agencies, and these conversations have been incredibly insightful. Having the chance to discuss your proposal directly with a Program Officer can be a game changer. Establishing and maintaining these relationships is critical for successfully navigating funding opportunities.

Embracing Technology In today’s fast-paced world, it’s impossible to discuss staying ahead without mentioning technology. For smaller institutions like PUIs, keeping up with the latest tools can be challenging due to limited resources. However, automation and artificial intelligence (AI) are playing an increasingly prominent role in research administration. Developing basic skills in these areas will help ensure a smooth transition into the future.

Experimenting with AI tools like ChatGPT, Copilot, or Claude can open your eyes to the possibilities they offer, even in just a few minutes of use.

Taking a step further by completing AI courses—such as those offered by platforms like Coursera—or keeping up with presentations on these topics from professional organizations can be a great way to start. AI is still in its early stages, but who knows what possibilities the future holds?

Developing an Adaptable Mindset Finally, I believe that cultivating an adaptable mindset is the most important strategy for staying ahead in research administration. As in any profession, embracing change and being open to new methodologies, technologies, and techniques is essential. Flexibility and a willingness to adapt to new circumstances will always give you an edge. Life is full of uncertainties, and the ability to navigate these twists and turns with resilience will empower you to succeed.

Conclusion Research administration is an exciting, dynamic profession that offers ample opportunities for growth and professional development. By committing to continuous education, fostering collaborative relationships, embracing technology, and cultivating an adaptable mindset, research administrators can position themselves for long-term success. The future may be uncertain, but by taking a proactive approach, you can be ready to face it head-on. N Carolina Pizarro, ALM, is a Senior Grants Specialist in Grants and Sponsored Programs at Barry University. A lawyer by trade with several years of experience in higher education, she enjoys being in pre-award at a PUI. Carolina can be reached at cpizarro@barry.edu.

Federal Demonstration Partnership’s IT Security Term Sheet

By Heide J. Eash and Julie Robinson

I

n early 2022, the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) Contracts Subcommittee established a new working group to review the growing landscape of terms and conditions propagated in federal awards requiring compliance with various data security regulations. The new IT Security Clause/ Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Working Group convened as a group of volunteers from across the country led by Heide J. Eash of the University of Pittsburgh and Julie Robinson of the University of Illinois. Initial discussions centered around standard security terms received in federal and federal flow-through awards, such as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and CMMC, and member institution interpretations of and processes for meeting such requirements. This effort resulted in the decision by the working group to pursue a comprehensive review and summarization of common security provisions to help FDP members and the larger research community respond to the requirements.

After more than a year of fruitful collaboration, the working group successfully launched a new resource tool in May 2024. The latest IT Security Term Sheet focuses on the ever-changing IT Security landscape and the terms and associated clauses. It is designed to be accessible to individuals with a basic understanding of IT security within research administration.

Still, it can also be used by individuals who may be more advanced in understanding such terms.

The tool starts by providing definitions to commonly used terms, such as CUI, Federal Contract Information (FCI), Covered Defense Information (CDI), and Controlled Technical Information (CTI). Users will find commonly used clauses on the next page, such as the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFAR)supplements (such as DFAR 252.204-7012), and NIST 800-171.

Each clause includes links to the specific governing federal regulation and prescribing FAR/FAR supplement clauses, where available, an interpretation of the clause, a description of potential concerns with the terms by receiving organizations, and proposed solutions for how an organization may wish to handle this clause when within an agreement. This detailed discussion of each term is designed to assist both fundamental research institutions and those who can conduct more restricted sponsored activities and may help when managing subawards between the two.

The working group encourages the research community to utilize this tool when receiving clauses yet to be encountered at its organization. The group hopes that this tool will assist users in expanding their knowledge base so that organizations can increase their understanding of the changing security term landscape and negotiate with greater confidence. The group continues to monitor the tool's use and welcomes feedback and additional membership by FDP member volunteers. N

The latest IT Security Term Sheet focuses on the ever-changing IT Security landscape and the terms and associated clauses.

Heide J. Eash, MBA, CRA, is the Associate Director for Federal Contracts in the Office of Sponsored Programs at the University of Pittsburgh. She oversees all aspects related to federal contracting, other transaction agreements, and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), specifically institutional signatory, pre-award and select post-award activities, non-financial agreements, leading the Federal Contracts Team, and communicating/training the Pitt research community. She can be reached at eashhj@pitt.edu.

Julie Robinson is an Associate Director for Negotiations in Sponsored Programs Administration at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Julie’s role includes negotiation of funded and unfunded research-related agreements, issuance of subawards, management of negotiation staff, and training and presenting on research administration topics. She can be reached at jrobnsn@illinois.edu.

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

57

Education Scholarship Fund Select Committee Update

Unlocking Opportunities: Tips for a Successful NCURA Education Scholarship Application What if one administrative decision created a ripple effect, impacting not only a project’s budget but also the people and resources it supports? In research administration, understanding the full impact of our choices is essential—and it is one reason I chose to pursue my master’s degree. It was Tuesday morning at 8:30 AM, and I was already in my Research Dean’s office, feeling like a lawyer fully prepared to take on the biggest case of their career. One of our grant applicant’s projects was being renewed, and we were told that the existing 11-year relationship with the contracting company was being re-evaluated.

Ultimately, it was decided that the contract would now be a subaward. The prior week, in my Contracts class, we discussed how to identify which funding mechanisms were appropriate for different situations. I brought the Uniform Guidance and my textbook to my Research Dean’s office. I was confident and ready to stand by my decision. I knew that if I gave in to the incorrect opinion, it would not only be wrong, but it would also cost her tens of thousands of dollars in indirect costs—indirect costs that our grant applicant relied on to pay off-campus rent and enabled a grant staff member’s child to financially cover their employee-dependent tuition discount. After weeks of email exchange involving our general counsel’s office, the contract stayed a contract, avoiding becoming a subaward and the loss of indirects.

While in my master’s in research administration (MRA) program at the University of Central Florida, I have encountered many situations where I was almost immediately applying what I had learned. I often came into the office, firing off questions to my supervisor about how our university or college handles certain policies or situations. The Education Scholarship Fund has enabled me to access the tools to navigate these complex decisions confidently, and with each new challenge, I have been able to draw directly from my coursework, ensuring that my department and its staff remain compliant and financially sound.

My experience in the MRA program has been impactful and transformative to me personally and professionally, and I really want to encourage others to seek out their own opportunities. For anyone considering applying to the Education Scholarship Fund, here are a few tips to consider while applying: • Most master’s programs require an entrance exam, and mine was no different! When answering some of the questions in the scholarship form, consider pulling content from the entrance exam you take!

• Most master’s programs require an entrance exam, and mine was no different! When answering some of the questions in the scholarship form, consider pulling content from the entrance exam you take!

• Avoid submitting brief, one-sentence answers. Take the time to reflect on each question. A well-developed answer shows your commitment and passion for the field.

58

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

• Have other people review your answers. I had my supervisor and research dean look over my responses. I know not everyone’s research deans are going to do that, but find people you trust and look up to, and allow them to give honest feedback.

(Just like I am with this article!)

• If you plan to submit in a future round, get involved in NCURA now! Although I did not have any volunteering experience to put on my form at the time, I discussed how I would get involved in the future. It also prompted me to look at what opportunities were out there, and I immediately began finding volunteer opportunities that I felt comfortable with, and plan to be more involved in the future to give back!

By thoughtfully preparing your application and demonstrating your dedication as a research administrator, you can greatly increase your chances of receiving the NCURA Education Scholarship. The Education Scholarship Fund has been an invaluable resource for me, both financially and through the connections I have made.

I look forward to meeting the next round of scholarship winners virtually or at the next NCURA conference! N

Kristen Hartung is a spring 2024 NCURA Education Scholarship recipient and Research Advancement Specialist for the College of Education and Health Professions at the University of Arkansas. She started her masters in fall 2023 and is expected to graduate in summer 2025. She can be reached at khartung@uark.edu

For more information about the Education Scholarship Fund, please visit us at www.ncura.edu/esf.

PRIM&R REACHES A MILESTONE

F

ifty years ago, in 1974, the National Research Act was signed into law, creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. That new federal legislation became the cornerstone of Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research’s (PRIM&R) mission and purpose.

Today, 50 years later, the national nonprofit continues to advance its mission of advocating for the highest ethical standards by supporting the day-to-day work of research compliance and research administration professionals.

As a robust community, PRIM&R provides support in educational programs, online forums, conferences, articles and podcasts to provide the tools needed to ensure research is ethical.

Last December, during PRIM&R’s four-day annual conference at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, DC, PRIM&R Executive Director Ivy R. Tillman, EdD, CIP, clearly outlined PRIM&R’s vision for the future: increased engagement, transparency, and accountability to help build and maintain public trust in scientific research.

“The research landscape is ever-evolving as fast-moving technology presents opportunities and ethical challenges that require us to be responsive and sensitive to the needs of our PRIM&R community and the larger public,” Dr. Tillman said. “This community is fully aware of the impact of mistrust and misinformation in science and research, which undermine public health and the public’s willingness to engage in research.”

Dr. Tillman emphasized that the PRIM&R community is an “essential component of this trust equation.”

Building trust in science requires a broader public understanding of the scientific process, as well as a better understanding of the history of scientific research in the United States. This year, PRIM&R is reaching the public in new ways -- finding audiences where they are. In April 2024, PRIM&R launched a podcast titled, “Research Ethics Reimagined.” In the monthly podcast, PRIM&R features conversations with scientists, researchers, bioethicists, and some of the leading minds exploring new frontiers of science.

“From teaching to navigating the complexities of research ethics as an IRB director, my career has been shaped by a commitment to bridging gaps, fostering understanding, and helping others make connections,” Dr. Tillman said of her role as the podcast’s host.

On the podcast “Research Ethics Reimagined,” guests have highlighted how to create a connection with the public and simplify the language scientists use; explored the intersection of artificial intelligence, ethics, and human behavior in the digital age; examined how scientific research with humans and other animals is intertwined, yet plays fundamentally different roles in producing new knowledge with broad-ranging benefits; highlighted the concept of legal empiricism, and how to make IRB rulings more transparent; and analyzed how researchers are navigating online spaces like Reddit.

“The public must know that research ethics professionals exist and that we are partnering with scientists, researchers, and industry to advance the highest ethical standards,” Dr. Tillman said. “Transparency and accountability are essential components of our commitment to maintaining public trust, and we believe PRIM&R is uniquely positioned to influence public discourse around trust in science and research.”

Public discourse has been at the forefront of PRIM&R’s mission since its founding in 1974 by a small group of committed, principled individuals who gathered in Massachusetts to discuss the future of medical research.

Among the issues driving the conversation was the concern over the indictment of four doctors who were conducting fetal research at the Boston City Hospital. A second rallying point was the Controlled Substances Act, a new law that restricted research on psychoactive drugs with persons institutionalized in state hospitals.

PRIM&R's founders were also keenly aware of new federal research regulations developed in response to the exposé of the United States Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee. That abuse, plus revelations of other ethical violations in human subjects research, led to the passage of the National Research Act in 1974, which included regulations (45 CFR part 46) NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

59

governing the protection of human subjects and mandating institutional review boards (IRBs), and was followed by The Belmont Report. Both a new field and PRIM&R as a formal organization were born, and their synergies have remained strong and constructive ever since.

Throughout the 50 years of PRIM&R’s, three Executive Directors have guided the organization: Joan Rachlin, JD, MPH; Elisa Hurley, PhD, and, now, Dr. Tillman.

PRIM&R’s ongoing work supports the professionals who directly work with the broader research community including the public.

Shortly after PRIM&R’s founding, Ms. Rachlin advanced the cause of research ethics through a range of activities, including organizing national conferences, developing educational materials, and building community.

She organized PRIM&R’s first educational conference in 1977. PRIM&R’s first Animal care and use conference, “Institutional Responsibility for the Conduct of Research” was held in 1983.

Fueled by the events of these decades, she never relented in her quest to improve educational programming during each of the years that followed.

In 1999, PRIM&R created the IRB 101 program for training in Human Subjects Protection, later distributed to research institutions nationwide.

PRIM&R filled a unique role in the emerging field of research ethics education and played an essential role of building community for research oversight professionals.

“Joan’s contributions to PRIM&R and the field of research ethics were extraordinary in her almost 40 years leading PRIM&R,” said Jori Leszczynski, DVM, DACLAM, Chair of PRIM&R’s Board of Directors. “Most important was her tireless dedication to the education, development, and certification of professionals to help ensure research subject safety across the human and animal fields. The field of research ethics would not be where it is today without Joan’s efforts to grow the field of research professionals.”

One of PRIM&R’s notable accomplishments is the growth of its membership program from a small group of 61 Charter Members in 1986 to the large and active membership community of today, which includes more than 3,000 research compliance professionals from around the world.

PRIM&R’s annual conference, which was held this November in Seattle, is the cornerstone of its commitment to advancing the highest ethical conduct of research. This event brings together constituents in the fields of human subjects research and animal care and use, as well as institutional leadership, to consider complex, challenging, and current issues in the conduct and oversight of research. The decision, in recent years, to bring all compliance professionals together has helped strengthen the bonds of the research community.

“PRIM&R filled a unique role in the emerging field of research ethics education.”

PRIM&R’s annual conference features programming for those new to their field, as well as seasoned professionals. Attendees from around the globe come together for lively discussions on everything from best practices in research oversight to key ethical concepts. Participants leave energized and better equipped to strengthen their research programs, making them more effective.

As technology advances, new ethical problems arise. PRIM&R is ready to lead the way, building community and understanding, as these challenges are navigated by research professionals throughout the country. N

RESOURCE

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

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

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

Topics include: • Requirements of supporting salary charges • Determining what constitutes compensation • Documentation and Internal Controls • Issue and Risks • Common Audit Findings • Other considerations • Example of internal control framework for compensation compliance

Get it here https://onlinelearning.ncura.edu/read-and-explore 60

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

Enhancing Community Engagement in Research Empowering and Training the Community Advisory Board to Review Broad Research and Enhance Equity

By Jeralyn Pierre

T

he Rutgers Office for Research Regulatory Affairs (RRA) is proud to announce the launch of a strategic initiative aimed at deepening community engagement in research through the establishment of a grassroots Community Advisory Board (CAB). This board is designed to ensure that the voices of community members are integral to the research process, offering valuable feedback on research projects and ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered. The CAB initially met with an introductory presentation of the historical reasons that eventually led to the formation of the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) nationwide, which operate under ethical guidelines established by the Belmont Report. The Belmont Report is a foundational document that outlines the principles of: 1) Respect for Persons, 2) Beneficence, and 3) Justice in Human Research (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). The CAB collectively discusses the enforcing federal department of all IRBs, or the Department of Health and Human Services, and how they enforce these ethical guidelines through the Common Rule. The Common Rule is a set of federal regulations that govern the ethical conduct with human research that all HRPP adheres to via reviewing all research involving participants and the IRB provides mandatory requirements per the law on how the research project can proceed. After informing the CAB of the IRB review process, we then added the missing component of community engagement that we want to include in the IRB

review process to inform IRB committee members of culturally sensitive ideas or social and economic burdens that may exist in a study for participants, that may be overlooked.

In the next step, we asked the members to agree to doing the Community Involvement in Research and Training (CIRT) and provide the certificate of completion by the third meeting. Subsequent meetings involved continuous review of various case studies and discussions with the lenses of the cultural knowledge, inclusivity, undue burdens, and opportunities for improvement to be considered for the respect of the participants, with the goal of improving the participants’ experience. Once the board was comfortable in reviewing various studies and understanding the kinds of lenses they needed to use to provide comments, we went to work in the next meeting! Studies were delivered via private software for CAB review two weeks prior to the CAB meeting. Members provided their written comments to the Research Regulatory Affairs Coordinator to consolidate and organize prior to the meeting.

The CAB are reminded of the safe space guidelines prior to the discussion so everyone can understand the comment and then vote on comments that will be submitted to the IRB team and principal investigators.

The CAB initially formed through word-of-mouth recruitment, however, the CAB is now broadening its outreach efforts, connecting with various community centers, including the YMCA and specialized health centers, to ensure a wider representation of voices.

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

61

! !

! !

!

!"#$%& !"#$%& '#()*""+$& '#()*""+$& ",&-./& ",&-./&

-./&0$)*1*'"23"*,1& 2+4*+5'&"6+&'"#$%& 5*"6& 2+7,))+1$3"*,1'& ",&"6+&-./&2+4*+5+2'&

! ! !

-./&2+4*+5+2'!& 2+4*+5'&31$&*''#+'& ! ),2+&*18,2)3"*,1&,2& 3&$+"+2)*13"*,1&

!

90/&2+4*+5'& '"#$%&31$&*''#+& 7,))+1"'&

!

! ! !

!"#$%&:+3)&2+7+*4+'& -./&7,))#1*73"*,1'& ! ,1&'"#$%&

9,))+1"'&'+1"& ! ",&"6+&-./&"+3)&",& 2+4*+5&

! !

The CAB’s primary objective is to cultivate diverse and inclusive dialogues that enhance our understanding of community perspectives. The board reviews studies and provides thoughtful, non-binding recommendations to the IRB. These recommendations are intended to complement, rather than disrupt, the IRB’s review process and timelines.

To ensure that CAB members are well-prepared to review research across a range of disciplines, we have implemented a comprehensive training program that includes: • Community Involvement in Research and Training (CIRT) • analysis of case studies spanning multiple academic disciplines • equity and inclusion training opportunities • access to relevant literature and references to deepen their understanding of historical research issues The impact of this training has been significant, enabling CAB members to contribute meaningfully by: • recommending modifications to recruitment strategies; • suggesting adjustments to inclusion and exclusion criteria relevant to the study’s functional needs; • providing alternative approaches for including participants with diverse abilities and financial constraints; • offering guidance on enhancing communication protocols, consent processes, surveys, and advertisement materials; • identifying additional disorders that align with the study’s objectives; • ensuring that study design procedures effectively address the cultural dynamics of the populations under study; • advocating for translation services to better serve impacted communities.

Our Office for Research recognizes that researchers may face challenges in creating their own CAB-specific boards due to constraints such as budget, staffing, and time limitations associated with sponsored projects. The feedback generated by the CAB also serves as a valuable training resource for IRB staff, review boards, research personnel, and principal investigators, fostering a

62

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

culture of continuous improvement and encouraging the integration of community and cultural humility initiatives into future research projects.

Moreover, participation in the CAB offers members unique career development opportunities in research administration. CAB members can engage with research administrators to explore resources and opportunities, leveraging their experience on the board as an introductory training on the structure of research studies, the roles of overseeing agencies, and the various organizations involved in the Human Research Protection Program. The hands-on training provided by our dedicated training manager during CAB meetings further educates members on regulatory standards and IRB processes, enhancing their ability to contribute community and culturally sensitive perspectives to research design.

Within the Office for Research and Regulatory Affairs, we believe this initiative exemplifies our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion in research. By amplifying the voices of marginalized communities in research that directly impacts them, we advance the Justice pillar of the Belmont Report, striving to create a research environment that is more representative, inclusive, and ultimately beneficial to all. N Reference National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmontreport/index.html Jeralyn Pierre is a project management professional turned research compliance administrator at the Research Regulatory Affairs department at Rutgers, dedicated to advocating for marginalized community groups. With expertise in project management, she ensures ethical research practices while amplifying voices often overlooked. Through collaboration and community engagement, Jeralyn bridges gaps between researchers and marginalized communities. Committed to social justice, she champions inclusivity and equity, both within the HRPP and beyond. Jeralyn's passion for advocacy drives her to make tangible differences, inspiring colleagues, and communities alike with her unwavering dedication to uplifting those most in need.

By Marianna Azar

O

n September 19, 2024, the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) hosted its 7th annual Exploratory Workshop focused on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in biomedical and social and behavioral research.

The purpose of OHRP’s Exploratory Workshops is to provide a platform for open dialogue and exchange of ideas among members of the regulated community. This workshop explored the ethical considerations and principles for governance pertaining to the use of AI in human research; considered some of the practical challenges of applying the Belmont Principles and the Common Rule to research involving AI; and contended with the challenge of maintaining public trust and aligning AI with human values.

The distinguished panel included speakers from industry, academia, think tanks, consultancy groups, and patient advocacy organizations. In setting the stage for the larger exploration of the topic, Kevin McKee, Staff Research Scientist with Google DeepMind, offered a myriad of ways in which AI can be defined and categorized. These definitions were interrogated in the presentations and discussions that followed, underlying the complexity of this topic and the challenge of identifying the right regulatory or policy approach to the use of AI tools in human research. In addressing the question of regulatory models and institutional practices, Stephanie Batalis, Research Fellow at the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University and Michael J. Pencina, Chief Data Scientist, Duke Health, both discussed key considerations for developing governance systems for the use of AI, stressing the need for flexibility, innovation, and inclusion of various research governance professionals, ethicists, and compliance experts into the process from the ground up.

As noted in the comments made by Craig Lipset, Co-Chair, Decentralized Trials & Research Alliance, the use of AI tools is changing the conduct of research and creating new opportunities and innovations in clinical trial design and conduct. The novel risks and the perceived magnitude of these risks have also prompted questions about activities that fall outside the Common Rule regulatory definitions of research and human subject, a subject explored in remarks by Iris Jenkins, Director of Research Integrity and Consultation, Virginia Tech. Benjamin C. Silverman, Senior Institutional Review Board Chair, Human Research Affairs, Mass General Brigham, addressed how the use of AI is testing the notions of personal privacy and identifiability of data and biospecimens. Expanding requirements for seeking and obtaining informed consent is a commonly suggested response to concerns surrounding the reach of AI. In her remarks, Sara Gerke, Associate Professor of Law and Richard W. & Marie L. Corman Scholar, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign College of Law, reviewed the practical and theoretical implications for disclosing the role and use of AI in human research, concluding that such requirements may have the unintended conse-

quence of further excluding people from research and potentially compromising the generalizability of research findings.

In the final session of the day, Reid Blackman, Founder and CEO, Virtue Consultants, and Karina Vold, Assistant Professor, Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto, debated the crucial question of how AI might impact autonomous decisionmaking and preference and value formation, ultimately shaping personhood. In a robust discussion, Dr. Vold argued for recognition of the unique and, in certain circumstances, grave danger posed by this technology and the need to align it with commonly held human norms and values that respect personal autonomy and authentic personhood, while Dr. Blackman underlined what he views as a common misunderstanding of what constitutes personal privacy and questioned what right any of us have to perceive our data as our own. In final remarks, Hugo Campos, Participant Ambassador, NIH All of Us Research Program, discussed the value AI holds for the patient and research participant and shared how his personal use of AI has empowered him to take more control over his medical care and wellbeing.

Mr. Campos also suggested ways in which the research community could ensure that research participants and patients could be empowered through AI, including being transparent about its use and providing education and training to ensure proper use and recognition of the limitations of AI. The event included three fruitful and rigorous panel discussions moderated

by Jessica Vitak, Full Professor, College of Information, University of Maryland, Eric Mah, Associate Dean, Clinical and Translational Research, University of California, San Diego, and Jeffery Smith, Deputy Director, Certification & Testing Division, Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In the opening address that Mr. Smith delivered, he spoke about HHS’s efforts in technology and artificial intelligence and described the AI Lifecycle as a framework for public policy.

This Exploratory Workshop follows past workshops on hot topics in research ethics, including Psychedelics Research, Payment for Participation, and Third-Party Research Risks.

The speakers’ biographies, slides, event recording, and summary report are available on OHRP’s website. Over 2,800 people have viewed the event as of the end of September.

Join OHRP’s listserv for up-to-date news! Get a web button to link us on your website! N Marianna Azar is a Program Specialist with the Division of Education and Development at the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She joined OHRP in 2021. Marianna holds a BA, MA, and has obtained ABD status toward a Ph.D. in Philosophy. She can be reached at Marianna.Azar@hhs.gov.

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

63

A Survey on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Research Administration

By Lisa Buoncuore, Youyou Cheng, Kira Gantt, Esmatullah Jafari, Karen Markin, and Lisa Wilson

Hot Topic is increasingly seen as everything from a threat to current employment to an indispensable tool that everyone needs to use. In research administration, a process-heavy enterprise, the benefits of using AI are easy to predict, but then again, so are the risks since confidentiality is a mainstay of the profession. To get a clearer picture of how people were thinking and using AI, the NCURA AI working group, in collaboration with the eRA working group, conducted a survey to assess who was using AI in research administration, what tools were specifically being used, and what problems or concerns were encountered. This report summarizes the key findings of the survey. It includes sections on methodology, demographic analysis, AI adoption and understanding, impact on work and efficiency, ethical and job security concerns, and institutional readiness and training.

AI

Methodology In April 2024, the NCURA AI and eRA Working Groups conducted a survey on the use of AI in research administration. The survey was distributed via the RESADM-L listserv and hosted on Survey Monkey. It remained open for three weeks and garnered 214 responses.

The survey was designed using Survey Monkey and included a mix of multiple-choice, Likert scale, and a few open-ended questions to capture research administrators’ inputs on different aspects of the research problem.

The survey was posted on the NCURA Collaborate Platform and shared through the RESADM-L listserv for self-reported participation. Some members also shared the survey with their personal networks. Following the data protection protocols, data was collected, stored, and shared securely with the research team for a descriptive analysis.

Although there was a wide distribution of the survey and robust responses, it is not possible to get a complete picture of viewpoints on use and what tools are used in research administration with a voluntary survey. Since the field of AI and available tools are still developing, the survey had to be developed without previous data or frameworks to focus on some of the questions. Definitions are also evolving which makes it challenging to have clear definitions when there is ambiguity around the technology.

Demographic Analysis Our survey yielded 214 responses from diverse research administration professionals across all eight NCURA regions, with the Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Mid-America, and Western producing 70% of the responses. Not surprisingly, the majority of responses (68%) came from those employed at doctoral universities with high or very high research activity; however, nonprofits, HBCU/MCSU, community colleges, and primarily undergraduate institutions were also represented. The participants skewed toward those with significant experience in the field, with 64% reporting more than 11 years of work experience. Still, they represented a broad portfolio of roles within research administration, ranging from pre-award to post-award to overall compliance. Departmental offices and centralized officers were represented in equal measure (56%), and 42% of the respondents were in management or leadership positions.

AI Adoption and Understanding Survey results revealed that exposure to AI in the research administration profession is a mile wide and an inch deep. Although almost 75% of respondents claimed to understand at least the basic concepts and potential applications of AI, only 27% claimed familiarity with current applications of AI in research administration. Nearly 42% of respondents have never used any AI tools, either professionally or personally.

Moreover, 58% who have used AI tools indicated significant diversity in those tools, ranging from Adobe Acrobat AI Assist to Grammarly to Poe and Dall-E, and only 24% of the respondents claimed to use the tools regularly (at least once a week).

64

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

Still, users have engaged AI tools for various tasks ranging from drafting emails and taking meeting notes to interpreting and summarizing federal regulations and institution policies. Other respondents have built templates for job descriptions, interviews, checklists, and training schedules. !"#$%#&'()'*$+#&,-'*-&./&+-#&/."".,'(0&12&+.."%&3.4&-$5#&4%#)&#'+-#6&76./#%%'.($""3&.6&'(&3.46& 7#6%.($"&"'/#8 ?7@A=:@7@ >)#))&

!"#$%&

!)#))&

"+#%!&

")#))& $)#))&

()#$*&

()#))& '#%"&

+)#))& )#))&

,-./012

3.4560789:9

39:;

<=:7

Impact on Work and Efficiency It may be too early to determine precisely how AI will impact the work of the research administrator; the tools are ever evolving, and new ones come online very quickly. While 70% of the respondents see a future in which AI tools play a significant role in research administration, and 52% believe AI is beneficial for research administrators, 38% feel they still need to determine whether the impact will be positive or negative. Interestingly, 60% say it will help reduce research administrators’ workload and improve efficiency in research administrative processes, leaving fully 40% to disagree or remain neutral. Perhaps these skeptics are recalling past predictions of technology reducing work hours or the work week; we tend to take on new tasks as we gain efficiency in others.

J/4=:;FHCN;477

N;477

<79/-74CN;477C=4CQ9@.;477

Q9@.;477

J/4=:;FHCQ9@.;477

+'#((& MC/-9:PC/-7CD@7C=KCNMCG.:C475DG7C/-7CO=4PF=.5C=KC47@7.4G.589:9@/4./=4@# &"'$%

+)#%!&

(%#+)&

+(#(+& MCK77FC/-./CNMCO9FFC-.I7C.CA=@9/9I7C98A.G/C=:C47@7.4G.589:9@/4./9=:#

!"#$%&

")#'!& $'#*%&

>#!%&

&"#&%

()#+*& MCE7F97I7CNMCO9FFC98A4=I7C/-7C7KK9G97:GHC=KC47@7.4G.589:9@/4./9=:CA4=G7@@7@#

%#)"&

$'#*%& $(#$*&

&"#&%

($#'$& MCE7F97I7CNMCO9FFCAF.HC.C@9;:9K9G.:/C4=F7C9:C/-7CKD/D47C=K 47@7.4G-C.589:9@/4./9=:#

"#>%&

($#$>&

"%#

!"#$%

Ethical and Job Security Concerns The survey reveals a nuanced perspective on AI's ethical implications in research administration. A significant 64% of respondents (40% agree, 24% strongly agree) express concern about AI's ethical implications, highlighting issues such as transparency, explainability, and potential biases in AI algorithms. This indicates a strong apprehension about the fairness and accountability of AI systems.

Conversely, the fear of job displacement due to AI is less pronounced. A combined 49% (34% disagree, 15% strongly disagree) do not believe that AI will replace jobs in research administration, suggesting confidence in the irreplaceable value of human oversight and expertise. Only 23% (18% agree, 5% strongly agree) think AI will eventually replace jobs, while 27% remain neutral.

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

65

J/4=:;FHCN;477

N;477

<79/-74CN;477C=4CQ9@.;477

Q9@.;477

J/4=:;FHCQ9@.;477

("#$)& ")#+*&

MC.8CG=:G74:75C.E=D/C/-7C7/-9G.FC98AF9G./9=:@C=KCNMC9: 47@7.4G-C.589:9@/4./9=:#

(+#)$& ++#>'& (#')&

!#+>& +'#$+&

MC.8CG=:G74:75C/-./CNMCO9FFC7I7:/D.FFHC47AF.G7CR=E@C9: 47@7.4G-C.589:9@/4./9=:#

(%#($& $"#(%& +!#)(&

!

S-./C9@CH=D4CE9;;7@/CG=:G74:C47;.459:;C/-7CD@7C=KCNMC9:C47@7.4G-C.589:9@/4./9=:TC U1F7.@7C4.:PCV +C/=C>W "!#))& ")#))& $!#))& $)#))& (!#))& ()#))& +!#))& +)#))& !#))& )#))&

+

(

$

"

!

>

X.GPC=KC/4.:@A.47:GHC.:5C7YAF.9:.E9F9/HC9:CNMC57G9@9=:@# 1=/7:/9.FCK=4CE9.@C.:5CD:K.94:7@@C9:CNMC.F;=49/-8@# Z=EC59@AF.G787:/C.:5CF=@@C=KC-D8.:C7YA74/9@7# Q9KK9GDF/HC9:/7;4./9:;CNMC/==F@CO9/-C7Y9@/9:;C@H@/78@C.:5CO=4PKF=O@# [/-9G.FCG=:@9574./9=:@ ?7@9@/.:G7CK4=8C@/.KK

Another significant concern is the need for more integration of AI tools with existing systems, with responses evenly distributed across rankings. This reflects the practical challenges organizations face when adopting new technologies. Despite these issues, resistance from staff and job displacement are not seen as the top priorities, indicating that the workforce may be more adaptable and resilient than anticipated.

Overall, the findings suggest a cautious optimism, emphasizing ethical considerations and practical integration challenges rather than an overwhelming fear of AI taking over jobs.

Institutional Readiness and Training Our findings reveal a substantial gap between the potential of AI in research administration and the current state of institutional preparedness. Most research administrators feel underprepared to use AI tools, citing insufficient support from their institutions. Despite this, there is a clear consensus on the importance of AI training, with most administrators expressing a desire for comprehensive training programs that go beyond technical instruction, encompassing critical thinking, data analysis, and ethical considerations.

66

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

Lack of Institutional Preparedness: Survey data revealed that less than 5% of research administrators feel their institution has adequately prepared them for using AI tools. In contrast, 75% of respondents disagree or strongly disagree, highlighting the significant gap between the institution’s potential to integrate AI and the actual readiness to do so. This suggests that while institutions may recognize the growing importance of AI, they have yet to provide sufficient training, resources, and support.

J/4=:;FHCN;477

N;477

<79/-74CN;477C=4CQ9@.;477

Q9@.;477

J/4=:;FHCQ9@.;477

)#"%& $#%>&

MCK77FC/-./C8HCGD447:/C9:@/9/D/9=:C-.@C7KK7G/9I7FHCA47A.475 47@7.4G-C.589:9@/4./=4@CK=4CD@9:;CNMC/==F@C9:C/-794CO=4P#

($#*"& $)#)!& #&"$'%

"(#!(& "+#!*&

MC/-9:PC/-./C/4.9:9:;C9:CNMC/==F@C.:5C/-794C.AAF9G./9=:@C9@ 98A=4/.:/CK=4C47@7.4G-C.589:9@/4./=4@#

+$#)'& (#$"& !"#$%

The Demand for Comprehensive AI Training: Research administrators overwhelmingly support the need for comprehensive AI training. Over 85% of respondents agreed that AI training is crucial to their roles. They seek programs that foster critical thinking and data analysis skills (87%), a foundational understanding of AI concepts and biases (82%), and technical training on specific AI tools (92%). It should be noted that respondents could choose more than one option while answering the related statements. These needs emphasize the desire to understand AI deeply to ensure its responsible and effective use. One respondent observed: “I think we need to be able to spot AI products and question it. AI generates output based on the whole body of the input it has "consumed." That is fine initially, but as the amount of AI content grows and its consumption, AI works more and more; it's an echo chamber. Or like cutting a board to a specific size but only measuring the first one, then using that to cut the second and the second to cut the third, etc., and eventually the last piece isn't remotely close to the measurement.”

Support Systems for Successful AI Adoption: Beyond training, research administrators require ongoing support systems. Over 75% indicated that a combination of resources is essential for long-term success with AI tools. These include dedicated AI specialists, access to online resources, and peer-topeer support networks. ?-$+&"#5#"&./&.(0.'(0&%477.6+&).&3.4&+-'(9&6#%#$6*-&$)@'('%+6$+.6%&(##)&,-#(&4%'(0&12& +.."%&'(&+-#'6&,.69;

!+#*(%

')#))& %)#))& >)#))& !)#))& ")#))& $)#))& ()#))& +)#))& )#))&

?7@A=:@7@

+#'*% Q759G./75CNM @A7G9.F9@/@C47.59FH .I.9F.EF7C/=C.@@9@/ O9/-C/4=DEF7@-==/9:; .:5C\D7@/9=:@# !#(*&

"#(+%

&$#&$%

NGG7@@C/=C=:F9:7 47@=D4G7@C.:5 5=GD87:/./9=:CK=4 @7FKL5947G/75CF7.4:9:; .:5C@DAA=4/# '#>!&

1774L/=LA774C@DAA=4/ :7/O=4P@C=4 G=88D:9/97@CK=4 @-.49:;C7YA7497:G7@ .:5CE7@/CA4.G/9G7@# +)#+)&

NCG=8E9:./9=:C=KC.FF#

%!#*>&

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

67

Balancing AI with Core Research Administration Skills: Respondents emphasized the importance of balancing AI education with foundational research administration skills. AI should enhance existing processes without overshadowing critical thinking and decision-making skills. According to the findings, professional organizations such as NCURA should prioritize providing resources and training on research administration's principles, foundations, and core concepts rather than over-focusing on AI. One respondent requested a more balanced approach: “Please don’t make this the only hot topic that we discuss; it’s becoming very common at meetings right now and keeps us from learning about other resources and tools that we could also be gaining.” Another cautioned: “Honestly, our field needs to focus on teaching the principals and getting more current than we are right now before jumping all of the way to AI. You have to build the foundation before you build the roof, or the house will fall. AI is a popular conversation right now; it’s not going away, and it is inevitable to learn. However, I recommend not jumping into the fad craze and taking smaller steps when focusing on hot topics. NCURA has always been the most helpful in teaching basics and principals first.”

Survey results revealed that exposure to AI in the research administration profession is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Conclusion This report summarized the key findings of a survey conducted by the NCURA AI and eRA Working Groups in April 2024. While most respondents grasp AI's basic concepts and potential implications, fewer are familiar with its current applications in research administration. The diversity of AI tools suggests that no single tool dominates the market or user preference at this point, although ChatGPT stands out as the most popular. Nearly 24% of respondents use AI tools at least weekly, indicating growing adoption rates. However, the prevalent use of free and publicly available AI tools raises concerns about information security.

52% of respondents believe that AI positively impacts research administration. A strong majority (70%) agree that AI will play a significant role in the future of research administration. Additionally, 60% of respondents think AI can reduce the workload of research administrators, and 59% believe that AI will improve the efficiency of research administration processes.

64% of respondents are concerned about the ethical implications of AI in research administration. However, a majority (49%) disagree that AI will eventually replace jobs in research administration, indicating less concern about job displacement.

Less than 5% of respondents feel their institutions have effectively prepared them for using AI, with a significant 75% disagreeing. Most (85%) agree that training in AI tools and their applications is crucial for research administrators. There is also a recommendation for professional organizations to prioritize resources and training on the principles, foundations, and core concepts of research administration over AI. >>

Hot Topic: Artificial Intelligence in Research Administration

By Kathleen Halley-Octa

F

rom smart homes to robot vacuums, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming an integral part of daily life. But for research administration, the pressing question is, “How will AI revolutionize the profession?” The NCURA AI Working Group’s survey offers valuable insights into the field's evolving relationship with AI tools. Overall, research administrators seem to be cautiously optimistic about the impacts of AI tools. Many are already utilizing publicly available tools like ChatGPT and Grammarly, while other institutions have worked to create customized AI tools to assist research administrators and better serve faculty. The potential for these tools to reduce administrative burdens and automate routine tasks could significantly reshape the research administration workforce, allowing professionals to focus on complex and compliance-driven responsibilities. However, the survey also highlights a critical need for continued training to ensure AI's efficiency is balanced with ethical considerations—an area where

68

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

NCURA is taking the lead with its upcoming AI Webinar Series.

Ultimately, while AI promises transformative benefits, its effective adoption will rely on innovation, thoughtful navigation of ethical considerations, and institutional readiness to empower the workforce fully. N

Kathleen Halley-Octa, MA, CRA, is a Co-Editor for NCURA Magazine as serves as a Manager with Attain Partners. She has worked in research administration for more than a decade and has experience at both the central and departmental level. She can be reached at kmhalleyocta@attainpartners.com.

Looking Forward To gain deeper insight into specific survey findings: 1. We plan to collect additional data.

2. The survey will be enhanced and standardized, with the aim of transforming it into an annual NCURA AI in Research Administration survey.

This will provide long-term insights into the impact of technology on the profession.

3. The survey results and subsequent findings are expected to inform the development of training materials.

Acknowledgment: All current members of the NCURA AI and eRA Working Groups participated in the development and implementation of the survey.

Authors are listed in alphabetical order.

SUMMARY • Diverse Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tool Usage: ChatGPT is popular, but no single AI tool dominates; 24% of respondents use AI weekly.

• Positive Impact: 52% of respondents see AI as beneficial, and 70% of respondents believe it will be crucial.

• Efficiency and Workload: AI can reduce workload (60% of respondents) and boost efficiency (59% of respondents).

• Ethical Concerns and Job Security: 64% of respondents worry about ethics, but 49% of respondents don’t fear job loss.

• Need for Training: 85% of respondents stress the need for AI training; less than 5% of respondents feel prepared.

Lisa Buoncuore, CRA, is the Grants and Contracts Manager at the Concord Consortium. She can be reached at lbuoncuore@concord.org.

Karen M. Markin, PhD, is the Director of Research Development at the University of Rhode Island. She has been in research administration for more than 20 years.

She currently serves as secretary-elect of Region I. She can be reached at markevicius@uri.edu.

Youyou Cheng is the Deputy Director of Sponsored Projects Financial Administration at Yale University. Youyou has twenty years of experience in both pre & post award management across departments, colleges and central offices in both private and public higher education institutions. She can be reached at youyou.cheng@yale.edu

Lisa Wilson is the Interim Assistant Vice President of Strategic Optimization and Training at Emory University. At Emory, she streamlines research administration processes and leads strategic operations and training. Lisa is active in various professional and leadership organizations. She can be reached at lisa.wilson@emory.edu.

Kira Gantt is a Grants Coordinator at Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She has held various roles at Virginia Tech and other institutions, focusing on outreach, education, and grant proposal development. Kira is currently co-chairing the NCURA AI Working Group. She can be reached at kgantt@vt.edu.

Esmatullah Jafari is a research administrator at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, managing a multimillion-dollar portfolio since 2022. He joined the NCURA’ AI Working Group in 2024 where he contributes to advancement of the profession. Previously, he held several grant management roles for non-profits in Afghanistan. He can be reached at ejafari@andrew.cmu.edu.

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

69

TRAINING TIPS

Reading the Signs: Strategies for Anticipating the Next Big Thing in Research Administration

By Candice Ferguson, Christyne Anderson, and Tricia Callahan

I

n the ever-changing world of research administration, waiting for the proverbial “next shoe to drop” often feels like a strategy grounded in practicality. After all, compliance regulations, sponsor funding shifts, and new federal mandates will arrive when they arrive, right? But while reactive approaches may have worked in the past, research administrators today face a more dynamic, complex, and fastpaced environment than ever before. Relying solely on a strategy of waiting might leave you scrambling when questions from your provost arise, or when your Principal Investigators (PIs) need guidance—guidance you wish you had seen coming.

So how do you prepare for the “next big thing”? Are crystal balls, tea leaves, or a high vantage point on a New York skyscraper viable options?

While these might provide comic relief during stressful times, staying ahead requires a much more grounded approach. In this article, we explore strategies for "seeing over the horizon" and preparing for what lies ahead in research administration. Being proactive, rather than reactive, can position your office to provide timely, strategic, and effective support to your institution's research community.

Subscribing to newsletters, policy updates, and alerts from these organizations is one of the simplest ways to stay informed.

Moreover, regularly reviewing regulatory trends and their impact on research administration is crucial. For example, recent discussions around data privacy laws and ethical guidelines in the context of artificial intelligence-driven research are areas where future compliance guidelines are likely to emerge. If you work for a "state-controlled institution,” it’s also important to stay abreast of state and local elected officials' policies and platforms. For example, cannabis research, which has largely been left to state governance, has become a catalyst for spurring funding opportunities and additional compliance requirements around this type of research. If you notice a particular issue receiving more attention, it could signify that new regulations or expectations are coming.

How to Anticipate Change Anticipating the next wave of change requires more than checking the Federal Register or tuning in to NCURA YouTube Tuesdays, though those are certainly good starting points. Here are a few strategies that research administrators can implement to position themselves as forward-thinking professionals.

1. Stay Engaged with National and International Conversations National organizations like the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) and the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) provide critical insights into the latest trends and developments. Meetings and webinars hosted by these organizations offer opportunities to learn directly from the individuals shaping policies and managing complex compliance issues. Networking with peers across institutions can also yield informal insights into the challenges emerging in the broader landscape of research administration.

International trends should not be overlooked either. Global challenges like pandemics and climate change drive international research collaboration, making it essential for research administrators to understand not just federal guidelines but also the priorities of international funding bodies such as the European Commission's Horizon Europe program.

Awareness of global research agendas can give administrators a broader view of how research priorities might shift locally.

2. Monitor Regulatory Bodies Closely While it may not be practical to read the Congressional Record daily, it is critical to keep a close eye on regulatory bodies like the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National Science Foundation (NSF). Changes in cost principles, reporting requirements, and audit practices often originate from these agencies.

70

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

3. Foster Collaborative Relationships with Faculty and Leadership One often overlooked but highly valuable strategy is talking to faculty and institutional leadership. Research administrators should seek to engage with faculty, especially those who serve on proposal review boards or advisory committees for major sponsors. These faculty members are likely to have direct insight into the future direction of sponsor funding priorities, which can help administrators prepare for upcoming shifts in focus areas or funding mechanisms.

Provosts, deans, and other institutional leaders often have local connections that can affect the research landscape. These leaders are often engaged by state and local officials who want to leverage the institution’s resources to research and provide insights into issues impacting the community. These relationships may lead to opportunities for researchers

Building strong relationships and fostering open lines of communication with leadership will make you a trusted advisor, helping ensure your office is prepared for internal and external changes. focusing on public health, criminal justice reform, civil and environmental engineering, education, economics, or policy development. Staying connected with these leaders can give research administrators an early warning system for shifts in institutional priorities or external pressures that may influence the research environment. Building strong relationships and fostering open lines of communication with leadership will make you a trusted advisor, helping ensure your office is prepared for internal and external changes.

4. Develop a Future-Oriented Mindset with Your Team Training and development are essential components of staying ahead in research administration. Encourage your team to not only keep up with current regulations but also to think critically about what changes might come next. One way to do this is through scenario planning exercises, where you anticipate potential future challenges and develop proactive strategies for addressing them. For example, how would your office handle a sudden change in procurement practices due to a new state law? What would happen if a major sponsor suddenly shifted its focus from basic STEM research to promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM fields? By regularly discussing these hypothetical scenarios, your team will cultivate a forward-thinking mindset that anticipates shifts before they happen. This approach not only ensures preparedness but also enhances the team’s problem-solving capabilities.

5. Utilize Data and Analytics to Inform Decisions Data analytics can be an invaluable tool for anticipating trends. Whether it's tracking sponsor funding trends, award success rates, or compliance findings, data can offer actionable insights into where the future is headed. For example, if you notice that specific research areas are receiving more funding year over year, that trend might signal a strategic shift in sponsor priorities. Similarly, tracking internal data on proposal submissions and success rates can help you identify trends in faculty research interests and potential gaps in institutional capacity. Many research administrators are already using dashboards to manage data, but taking this one step further by using predictive analytics can offer a more forward-looking view. Predictive modeling can help identify risks or opportunities before they become pressing concerns, allowing your office to be proactive rather than reactive.

6. Training Resources and Communication Preparation Part of staying ahead is also being ready to communicate and train your team on new information. Knowing the software and tools that can assist you is key to ensuring information is up-to-date and distributed in a timely manner. Creating training resources such as short videos with embedded screenshots that can be switched out more easily than a video recording is one way to efficiently train on ever-changing requirements.

Keep a blog or email distribution list to quickly distribute information, resources and training opportunities. This will keep the community connected to the latest information and prepared for whatever shoe drops next.

Conclusion In a profession as dynamic as research administration, it’s easy to feel like you’re always waiting for the next big change. But relying on that strategy can leave you playing catch-up regarding regulations, funding shifts, or institutional priorities. Instead, you can position yourself and your office to anticipate changes before they arrive by engaging with national and international conversations, monitoring regulatory bodies, fostering collaborative relationships, developing a future-oriented mindset within your team, leveraging data analytics, and making sure your training is up-to-date. Being proactive benefits your institution and builds your reputation as a forward-thinking and strategic research administrator.

So, maybe the tea leaves aren’t necessary after all—although a little humor and a calming cup of tea never hurts! N

Candice Ferguson has been a passionate trainer and research administrator for more than 10 years. She currently works as the Associate Director, Research Education & Training at Georgia State University. Outside of her work, Candice enjoys serving through NCURA, gardening, hiking, camping, and spending time with family and friends. She can be reached at cferguson1@gsu.edu.

Christyne Anderson is the Associate Director for Training and Compliance in the Office for Sponsored Programs at Harvard University. In this role, she is the point of contact for sponsored audits, training university-wide and responsible for areas of financial compliance. Christyne has over 14 years of experience in grants management in both large and small institutions of higher education as well as non-profit organizations. She can be reached at Christyne_anderson@harvard.edu.

Tricia Callahan, MA, CRA, is the Interim Director of Research Training at Emory University. In her position, she analyzes training needs, develops curriculum, and delivers courses related to research administrative functions, utilization of system applications, and general industry knowledge. Tricia has been a member of NCURA since 1999 and can be reached at tricia.callahan@emory.edu.

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

71

NCURA Regional Corner REGION I New England

REGION II Mid-Atlantic

www.ncuraregioni.org

www.ncuraregion2.org

www.facebook.com/ncuraregioni

www.facebook.com/groups/ncuraregionii

On October 21 Region I had two workshops. The first one was Essentials of Research Administration. The instructors were Brandi Glover of Brown University, Jessica McDonough of Yale University and Tom Dillion of Boston College. The next workshop was Pre-Award Workshop concentrating on Pre-Award: Proposal Preparation and Budgeting. Then the PostAward workshop concentrated on Award Management and Reporting.

These were consecutive and the instructors were Rady Rogers of Harvard University and Amy Ellis of Yale University. There were 20 people in attendance for each workshop and all were quite pleased with the course.

On October 15 Region I hosted another Wicked Good Chat. The topic was The Evolution of Working with Tribal Nations, a Prospective from the University of Maine. The presenters were Gretchen Faulkner, Director of the Hudson Museum, University of Maine and Professor Darren Ranca, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Coordinator of Native American Research at the University of Maine. They were able to talk about their work with tribal nations and how changes in the federal government hat included NSF policy changes and presidential executive orders are changing the landscape around engagement and research opportunities with tribal nations.

We had another Wicked Good Chat on October 29 with NCURA President Kris Monahan as the guest speaker. The topic was Research Administration as a Profession: Past, Present and Future. Kris discussed the evolution of research administration as a profession in North America and how it has changed and is changing to meet the dynamic evolution of the research ecosystem.

In November, Region I is planning on having a RADG meeting on November 14. The topic is: Build It or Buy It: Approaches to Centralizing and Utilizing Central Research Support. This session will go over department support and how centralized units at some institutions provide department level support to faculty. The session will consider pros and cons to this approach and issues of scale, structure, reporting lines and professional development. Issues of power dynamics and how reporting lines support compliance will also be addressed. The speakers are Dave Waldron, MGB, Eric Jones, Northeastern University, Nicole Magni, Northeastern University, and Karen Griffin, UMass Medical Center.

Nicholas Fisher is the 2024 Chair of Region I and serves as the Research Administrative Director at Boston Children’s Hospital Department of Urology. He can be reached at Nicholas.Fisher@childrens.harvard.edu.

72

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

WOW! What a successful 2024 Fall Meeting we had in Pittsburgh, PA! It certainly was a “beautiful day in the neighborhood!” The Program Committee put together an AMAZING number of sessions, discussion groups, free workshops, and networking opportunities. Special thanks to Charles Bartunek, Catherine Parker and all committee members for their tireless efforts that made this sold-out meeting so outstanding. There were 217 attendees that forged bonds and connected with so many! During the meeting, Jennifer Harman from the University of Rochester and Rebecca Hunsaker from the University of Maryland, College Park, were presented the 2024 Distinguished Service Award for NCURA Region II in recognition of their exemplary service to the region. Congratulations to Jennifer and Rebecca on this well-deserved honor!

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Region II 2025 Fall Meeting will be held at the Gideon Putnam Resort & Spa in Saratoga Springs, NY, October 19–22, 2025. If you would like to volunteer for the Region II Meeting Program Committee, please contact Catherine Parker, 2025 Program Committee Chair at caparker@umd.edu As my year as the Chair comes to a close, I want to thank the Region II leadership team for a wonderful year of growing, learning and successes.

Their contributions have been invaluable to me and our members: Lamar Oglesby (Immediate Past Chair); Cassie Moore (Chair-Elect); Soraina Baez (Secretary); A. Chea Smith (Treasurer); Jennifer Vessio (Treasurer-Elect); Charles Bartunek (R2 Meeting Chair Program Committee); Catherine Parker (PDC); Margarita Cardona (DEI); Mary Louise Healy (Mentor Me); Rebecca O’Brien (Member at Large); Rashonda Harris (Member at Large); Albana Cejne (Member at Large); and Adam Greenberg (Member at Large). I would also like to thank Laura Kingsley (Region II Regionally Elected National Board Member) for providing support and updates from NCURA. The Region II Leadership Retreat will be held on December 9, 2024, to include current and incoming leadership team members to plan for 2025.

Watch for announcements on the Region II website, Facebook, Collaborate and in e-blasts and the quarterly newsletter. Contact us, we are here for YOU! Happy Holidays to you and yours! I look forward to seeing everyone in 2025 and serving as the Immediate Past Chair. May the New Year bring us continued opportunities to grow our profession!

Sandy Collier is the Chair of Region II and serves as Director of Operations and Finance at the University of Maryland, College Park. She can be reached at collier@umd.edu.

REGION III Southeastern

REGION IV Mid-America

www.ncuraregioniii.com

www.ncuraregioniv.com

www.facebook.com/ncuraregioniii

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

Happy holidays to our flamingo family! As the new year approaches, we’d like to take the time to recognize all of our wonderful volunteers who made 2024 a success. Our executive and standing committee members are crucial to keeping the Region III Flamingos flocking together, and they couldn’t do it without the numerous volunteers helping to run our regional conference and creating an effortless and fun experience at the annual meeting. Thank you to everyone who lent their skills, time, and advice to make this year a success in the Southeast! If you’re a member of Region III and would like to get involved, please reach out to us and let us know (NCURARegion3@gmail.com) or via our volunteer page on our website!

As we enter 2025, planning is in full swing for our spring meeting in Louisville, KY from April 28–30, 2025, with pre-conference workshops on April 26 and 27. Chair-elect Celeste Rivera-Nunez (University of Central Florida) and meeting co-chair Jeanne Viviani-Ayers (University of Central Florida) are working closely with the staff at The Galt House to ensure that our flock can gather for a safe and fun meeting experience. Many thanks go out to next year’s program committee: Erin Butler (Emory University), Melanie Clark (Georgia Institute of Technology), Emily Devereux (University of South Carolina), Melinda Fischer (Clemson University), Laura Ledbetter (Georgia Institute of Technology), Tameria Mace (University of Central Florida), Danielle McElwain (University of South Carolina), Linnea Minnema (Samford University), Betty Morgan (North Carolina State University), Scott Niles (Georgia Institute of Technology), Carly Pigg (Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans), Lorrie Robbins (Duke University), and Stephanie Rodriguez-Makhlouf (University of Central Florida). This group is working hard to put together an exciting slate of workshops, concurrent sessions and discussion groups and a draft program will be available on the Region III website.

As always, stay in touch and keep up with the latest regional news by connecting with Region III on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram or joining the RIII Collaborate Community. You can also find up-to-date information on our website (www.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.

Greetings Colleagues! There has been a lot of activity in Region IV this past fall. The Region IV Board held its fall board meeting in Chicago in late October. This was a terrific time for some in depth planning and discussion. It began with a tour of the Swissotel, the site of our Spring meeting, May 4-7, 2025. The bulk of the meeting was spent conducting vision mapping for the Region, led by At-Large Board Member Lauren Gee, as well as reviewing and updating our Administrative Procedures. Prior to the meeting, committee chairs reviewed the procedures and made recommendations for updates. All changes have been compiled and we will soon share a clean copy of all updates. In accordance with our bylaws, a majority of the Board will need to approve the final version, and it will be shared with our members no later than 30 days after approval.

Thanks to the fall meeting planning committee – Gretchen Carnoske, Lauren Gee and Beth Woods – for a successful and productive meeting!

Just a few other things. The latest membership report now lists over 1,550 members in our Region. That is pretty amazing! The Communications Committee has been working tirelessly on updating the Region IV website (www.ncuraregioniv.com), which was rolled out in mid-October.

Thanks to co-chairs Liz Grinstead and Kate Chie for their tireless work the new website looks terrific! At the most recent National Board Meeting, the Region IV Professional Development Committee (PDC) Career Path Report was presented to the Executive Committee. It was so well received that we have been asked to provide an overview for other Regional Officers. In late November, the PDC also sponsored the first ever Region IV Ask Me Anything Panel featuring past and present Region IV leaders including Hang McLaughlin, Julie Olivero, Suzanne Reinke, Matt Richter, and Shannon Sutton. Thanks to PDC co-chairs Crystal James and Jennifer Schmaltz for organizing and hosting.

In closing, I want to thank the Region IV leaders of the past few years.

Katie Schortgen for showing strong and steady leadership during the height of the pandemic. Kristin Harmon for guiding us through our first, awesome meeting once we were able to get together in person again. Julie Olivero for her great energy and continued commitment to our members and our Region. They have forged a tremendous path, and I look forward to the exciting things that are ahead for the Region!

Roger Wareham is the 2024 Chair of Region IV and serves as the Director of Grants and Research at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. He can be reached at warehamr@uwgb.edu.

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

73

Regional Corner continued REGION V Southwestern

REGION VI Western

www.ncuraregionv.com

www.ncuraregionvi.org

www.facebook.com/ncuraregionv

www.facebook.com/groups/729496637179768

Our annual regional meeting occurred November 3-6, 2024, in Corpus Christi, TX. Registration and attendance were solid with highly engaged volunteers! Thank you all for your support! A central priority and my commitment to inclusion and accessibility were interwoven into the program and with extensive efforts of Mona Bisase, Robyn Cooper, Feroza Haq’s oversight of accessibility, and Jeffrey Garza’s oversight on dietary needs and restrictions instrumentally allowed us to achieve our 2024 goal and objective.

Special thanks to our 2024 meeting sponsors: Sponsors University of Houston Sam Houston State University Texas A&M University Silver Attain Partners Baylor College of Medicine Oklahoma State University Texas Tech University University of Texas at Austin Bronze Actalent Texas Christian University University of North Texas- Dallas University of North Texas Health Science Center University of Texas at Arlington Business Meeting & Texas Christian University Sunday Night Reception Level Gold

I also want to highlight the immense efforts of our volunteers that made this meeting possible. Our education committee led by Vanessa Lopez comprised of some amazing individuals: Kettie Eipers-Smith, Courtney Hoover, Sandra Morriesette, Melissa McCauley and Abby Guillory. The entertainment committee led by Liz Kogan and Laura Rosales included Patricia Foster, Kimberly Hawkenson, Mariah Martinez, Diane Hatton, Lizette Gonzales, Cindy Lopez and Ali Ibrahimov.

At our regional meeting, we honored the Mustang Mentorship Program (MMP) graduates and mentors. Way to go Mentees!

Mentee Name Amy Jones Roxanna Lopez Sanaa Waqif Maria Machuca

Mentor Name Rebekah Craig Mickey Stevenson Scott Davis Raquel Rust

MMP is chaired by Robyn Remotigue. Robyn, is also the recipient of the 2024 Distinguished Service Award for her contributions to the field of research administration. Please join the executive committee and officers in congratulating Robyn on her achievement!

Sheleza Mohamed, FACHE, MBA, MHA, CRA, CFRA, CPRA, is the Chair of Region V. She currently serves as National Director of Government Grants Administration at the American Heart Association. She can be reached at sheleza.mohamed@heart.org.

74

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

What a year 2024 has been! The holiday season is already here. This year has gone by so fast, but we were able to make wonderful memories together and achieved so much as a Region.

We tried news things and accomplished some big milestones. Some highlights are: • Regional membership exceeded 1300 members for the first time • Annual meeting networking event was held off site and was a success with more than 85 attendees.

• 2025 Regional meeting to return to California for the first time since 2010.

• Region VI members were recipients of 4 National awards at AM66.

• EPDC had multiple lunchtime virtual offerings with highlights being the subaward series and emotional intelligence.

Our fall regional meeting in Albuquerque was phenomenal! Starting with our amazing keynote speaker, Albuquerque Poet Laureate Manuel Gonzales who gave the Land acknowledgements of Land acknowledgements and inspired all the attendees to write about their life and share their poetry. It was a keynote unlike any other. People were moved to tears as they shared their poetry and every one of us in the ballroom was in awe of this special moment. In addition to having an immersive educational component, the meeting had a cultural one that helped us all to learn and appreciate the heritage and enchantment of New Mexico. We were truly able to “Reach New Heights Together.”

I shared this fun fact with our regional meeting attendees. Since Fall 2022, Region 6 &7 have been to the 48th State (Tucson, AZ), 49th state (Anchorage, AK), 50th state (Honolulu, HI) and just this past September the 47th state, Albuquerque, NM! I look forward to working with our incoming 2025 officers and to continue serving our great region as immediate past Chair.

Matt Michener, Chair Patrick Lennon, Vice-Chair Anastasia Rutherford, Treasurer Cara Winnewisser, Secretary Jenna Isakson, Secretary-Elect Jennifer Cory, Board of Directors Representative Tiffany Gregory, At Large RAC member Thank you, Region VI! It has been an honor and a privilege to serve as your Chair this year. Happy Holidays!

Jason Park is the Region VI Chair and serves as the Director of Contracts and Grants for the UC Irvine Charlie Dunlop School of Biological Sciences at the University of California, Irvine jpark@uci.edu.

REGION VII Rocky Mountain

REGION VIII International

www.ncuraregionvii.org

www.ncuraintlregion.org

www.facebook.com/groups/NCURARegionVII

Greetings Jackalopes! I am happy to report that the Region VI and VII meeting in Albuquerque, NM was a great success! We had an outstanding keynote speaker who gave, according to some, the best land acknowledgement they’ve ever heard; attendees appreciated participation from the three National labs; we celebrated our LeadMe graduates; concurrent and discussion group sessions provided valuable professional development; and we all got a taste of New Mexico culture in our meals, a hot air balloon glow, and flamenco dance performance. Thank you to all of the volunteers who supported the meeting!

As 2024 wraps up, Region VII leadership and committee chairs are focusing on: • Reviewing and updating role descriptions to be ready for our new officers; • Meeting with new officers to transfer information about the different roles; and • Discussing a new travel award and travel award criteria.

In January, I will transition to the Past Chair role, and Brigette Pfister will become Region VII Chair. My year as Chair has been an incredible opportunity to further the work of past Region VII officers in making our Region so relationally vibrant, welcoming and supportive and continuing to advance the research administration profession.

Thank you to those who served as Officers and Committee Chairs this year: • Natalie Buys, Past Chair • Brigette Pfister, Chair Elect and Regional Meeting Program Committee Co-Chair • Lisa Allen, Treasurer • Teresa Cochran, Treasurer Elect • Betty Rasmussen, Secretary • Eric Everett, Member-at-Large, Co-Chair of Awards Committee • Tracy Gatlin, Member-at-Large, Co-Chair of Awards Committee • Ashley Stahle, Regionally-Elected Member of the National Board of Directors and Co-Chair of LeadMe • Garrett Steed, Volunteer Coordinator • Lori Shuler, Chair, Professional Development and Education Committee • avannah Allshouse, Chair, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee • Trisha Southergill, Chair, Communications Committee • Sylvia Bradshaw, Chair, PUI Committee and National Nominating and Leadership Development Committee

Season’s Greetings! I hope you all manage some downtime over the coming weeks. This will be my final article as 2024 Chair. It has been an honor to hold this position and a huge thanks for giving me this opportunity to serve our region. I extend my gratitude to members of our Executive and Advisory Committees for their enthusiasm, good humour, and dedication.

It’s important to reflect on some of our achievements and highlights this past year. We introduced our new Strategic Plan 2024-2028 in January, with a renewed focus on community, the professional development of our membership, and on global collaboration. We made key changes to our Administrative Policies and Bylaws and elected to change Region VIII’s branding with a new logo.

We kicked off 2024 with a successful workshop reflecting on the NIH policy change for foreign subaward recipients. We broke Region VIII attendance records at AM66 when 64 of our members travelled to Washington, DC. We hosted several well-attended in-person events and workshops for Region VIII members alongside the main conference. We closed out this year with our Women in Senior Leadership webinar, popular with members and non-members alike.

We recently launched our new Region VIII Newsletter, and the inaugural edition went out to all members in early November. This feature will be sent quarterly, and we will soon be communicating information on upcoming events planned for 2025.

This year’s elections have concluded, and several key positions have been filled. Daniela Amadio, University College London, is our new ChairElect; Luigi Pellegrino, Bocconi University, will again serve At-Large Board Member, and Patricia Gigliuto, University of Melbourne, will also join our Advisory Committee in this capacity. A warm welcome to them all. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Connie Killey and Grace Martley who leave our Advisory Committee, and to Elly Pineda, our outgoing Past Chair.

Elly’s contribution is immeasurable, and she leaves this post having made a hugely positive impact on our region. She has been an excellent mentor, and I wish her success in her future endeavours.

I look forward to serving our region next year as Past Chair, and to continue working with Tine Heylen, our incoming Chair, and the Executive and Advisory Committees. See you all in 2025!

Joey Gaynor is the Chair of Region VIII and he serves as Senior Research Funding Specialist at Trinity College Dublin. He can be reached at joey.gaynor@tcd.ie.

For more details about our activities and the Regional Meeting, visit www.ncuraregionvii.org.

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

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

Alexa Van Dalsem is the Chair of Region VII and Director of the Office of Contracts and Grants at the University of Colorado Boulder. She can be reached at alexa.vandalsem@colorado.edu.

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

75

WITH NCURA PUBLICATIONS Expand your knowledge with these easily readable, concise and affordable resources. ORDER YOUR COPIES TODAY! • A Primer on Clinical Trials • Compensation – Personal Services: Managing and Reporting Effort • Cost Sharing: An Overview • Facilities and Administrative Costs in Higher Education

• Establishing and Managing an Office of Sponsored Programs at Non-Research Intensive Colleges and Universities • A Primer on Intellectual Property • The Role of Research Administration • Writing and Negotiating Subawards

Office

nagem ent

ON IMER IALS A PR TR ICAL CLIN R THE FO ARCH R RESE RATO NIST ADMI

© National Council of University Research Administrators | Phone: 202.466.3894 | Fax: 202.223.5573 | info@ncura.edu

FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO ORDER THESE PUBLICATIONS VISIT THE NCURA STORE: www.ncura.edu/PublicationsStore.aspx

76

NCURA Magazine

I December 2024

and Bud

get

200

(Effective

~

• OMB Uniform Guidance Desk Reference

of Ma

2 CFR

Uniform and Aud Adminis trat it Req uiremenive Require men ts for Federal ts, Cost Prin Award ciples, s 12/26/14

)

National Council of University Research Administrators

Support Your Faculty

Build Your Community

Advance Your Career

Now, More Than Ever…

The Impact of Your NCURA Membership •

Advanced Online Networking Search: based on areas of responsibility and expertise

•

Sample Policies & Procedures

•

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

•

Online Member Directory: to connect with your peers

•

•

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

Special member pricing on all education and products

•

Podcasts and session recordings from our national conferences

•

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

Access to and free postings to NCURA’s Career Center

•

Leadership and Volunteer Opportunities

•

•

10% discount on tuition to JHU’s Master of Science in Research Administration program

Scholarships for Graduate Education in Research Administration

•

•

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

NCURA Fellowship Program: apply to travel to an organization in another part of the world to learn and support global collaborations

Visit www.ncura.edu to explore your member benefits today!

How AI is Transforming Agriculture at North Carolina’s Largest HBCU

By Brianna Atkinson, WUNC

W

hen people picture a working farm, Harmandeep Sharma said most tend to have one image in mind: a farmer in a field of crops, working in soil all day.

While that isn’t an inaccurate perception, it’s also not the full picture.

In Sharma’s agricultural lab at North Carolina A&T State University, those rows of crops are embedded with sensors, and drones are flying overhead, monitoring the fields.

And Sharma’s hands aren’t full of soil—instead they are gripping a laptop, inserting data about the crops’ health that day.

“There has been a very rapid advancement of agriculture over the past couple of years,” Sharma said. “With this technological advancement, we have sensors, we have drones. We are in the era of Agriculture 5.0.”

Sharma said the newest venture in this era of data-driven agriculture is artificial intelligence.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture invested $20 million in a climate-based AI project led by the University of Minnesota. It’s one of several AI agriculture projects the federal government has funded recently.

In North Carolina, the General Assembly invested $1 million in an AI partnership between N.C. A&T, North Carolina State University, and SAS, an analytics firm. In March, SAS deployed an AI platform for the two universities’ agriculture departments.

John Gottula is SAS’ principal advisor for AI and has a background in crop science. He said the AI platform helps researchers make crisper conclusions faster.

“It breaks down that silo between people who know the subject matter and people who know the data science,” he said. “(Subject-matter experts) are now able to query that data and crunch those numbers in a meaningful way, where they can quickly recognize what’s realistic and what’s not.”

The platform is being used by 14 programs at N.C. A&T, including Sharma’s Plant Sensor Lab. Sharma’s research is on fresh market tomatoes, industrial hemp and hot peppers. She has two lab locations at the A&T farm in Greensboro: an environment-controlled greenhouse and an outdoor field with naturally changing conditions.

Plants at both locations are attached to sensors that continuously collect data. They measure conditions like air temperature, carbon dioxide levels and water uptake. The information is fed into the SAS AI platform, which Sharma said can make crucial predictions.

“I have the capacity to generate hundreds of models at one time,” Sharma said. “And then ask artificial intelligence to compare those models and provide me with the champion model, the best predictive model for any data set.”

The models suggest optimal water levels, sunlight or other conditions for the plants to thrive. Sharma then uses these hypotheses to help guide experiments in her research.

Before this technology was available, Sharma said she and other researchers had to do “blind average applications.” Researchers would 78

NCURA Magazine

I Oct/Nov 2024

decide on one rate of nitrogen or water level to apply on the entire field.

Now, Sharma said she can use technology to map out her field and tailor precise amounts of water, nitrogen or fertilizer her plants need. This practice is called precision agriculture. It’s a type of sustainable farming that uses data science to reduce the resources used to grow crops.

“With this technology, we are using the required amount of inputs,” Sharma said. “It's not just environmentally sustainable, because we are not polluting our waters, but it is also helping farmers with the money. They are not overspending on fertilizers that are not helping their crops in any way.”

The point of the collaboration with SAS and NC State is to help local farmers. The universities will share research findings through their cooperative farming extensions. Gottula said that advanced technology like AI usually benefits commercial or large-scale farmers.

“And so by working through those institutions (N.C. A&T and NC State), we are able to help bring the benefits of AI, those crisper decisions, that increase the value of farming products,” said Gottula from SAS. “We're able to get that in the hands of growers, who may be smaller and less resourced than those with tens of thousands of acres.”

In Sharma’s lab, her focus is to help small-scale and historically underserved farmers grow high value crops like tomatoes and hot peppers. She plans to condense her findings into easy-to-understand tips that farmers can use to maximize their yields.

“With the power of AI prediction, we can tell (farmers) maybe go for this particular variety, this particular amount of inputs,” Sharma said. “That’s going to save their time, save their money and then it’s going to help them grow crops sustainably.” N

For the complete article visit

www.wunc.org/education/2024-08-20/artificialintelligence-agriculture-university-hbcu

NCURA Calendar of Events

TRAVELING WORKSHOPS

NATIONAL CONFERENCES

• Contracting Negotiation and Administration Workshop February 10-12, 2025 Atlanta, GA

• Financial Research Administration Conference March 17-18, 2025 San Diego, CA

• Level I: Fundamentals of Sponsored Projects Administration Workshop February 10-12, 2025 Atlanta, GA

• Pre-Award Research Administration Conference March 20-21, 2025 San Diego, CA

• Level II: Sponsored Projects Administration (SPAII) Workshop February 10-12, 2025 Atlanta, GA

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

• 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

• Region III (Southeastern) April 28-30, 2025 Louisville, KY • Region IV (Mid-America) May 4-7, 2025 Chicago, IL • Region V (Southwestern) October 19-22, 2025 San Marcos, TX • Region VI (Western)/Region VII (Rocky Mountain) November 2-5, 2025 Costa Mesa, CA

Happy ! r a e Y New For further details and updates visit our events calendar at www.ncura.edu.