The SRA Symposium - College of Medicine

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Papers and in which disciplines. They know how the processes in the institution work and who to call for what information. This wealth of information is typically underutilized. An all-too-common interaction between junior faculty and research administrators comes when a new investigator submits his or her first grant application. The investigator then learns about grant submission and administration through trial and error, by being corrected on what he or she has done wrong. This initial interaction may make investigators feel like research administrators are simply putting up barriers or adding hoops through which one must jump. It may also make research administrators frustrated that the junior investigator has not been taught by his or her mentor what he/she needs to know about research administration. Overlap of Need and Expertise There is substantial overlap in the mentoring needs of junior faculty and the knowledge that research administrators possess. While research administrators may not be able to train a new investigator in specific research methods, there are a few areas where their expertise can be particularly helpful to the junior faculty member: Networking – One of the critical responsibilities of a mentor is introducing junior faculty members to research leaders in their field (Bauchner, 2002, Kaye 1996, Schrubbe 2004). But beyond this traditional concept of networking, mentors should also give junior faculty advice about access to resources within and outside of the institution. Because research administrators work with a number of faculty members, they can serve as “match-makers” for faculty with similar research interests. This may involve a simple introduction via e-mail that points out the similar interests or a meeting to introduce individuals face-to-face. Research administrators also generally know the institution well enough to know who to call for what (e.g., access to the General Clinical Research Center or Department of Lab Animal Resources, etc.). This access to resources can be of significant benefit to junior faculty. Simply giving a junior faculty member the name of a contact person instead of a general office number is well-received. Listening and problem solving –Most junior faculty appreciate having someone with whom they can talk and work through issues (Pololi 2002, Mott 2002, Connor 2000, Tobin 2004, Kaye 1996). These issues may involve political situations in the institution or simply questions about the city, if the faculty member is new to the area. Research in the area of mentoring has identified a lack of time with the mentor as the biggest obstacle to the success of the experience (Waugh 2002, Mason 2003, Andrews 1999). Research administrators can help fill this gap and provide mentoring to junior faculty through problem solving, particularly related to research administration. Questions about application deadlines or institutional business practices are common among junior faculty and don’t require a response from a senior faculty member. In addition, sometimes the junior faculty member just needs someone with whom he/she can brainstorm. This access to a listening ear is extremely helpful to junior faculty. Obtaining research funding – For many junior investigators, the most intimidating activity faced is obtaining research funding. It entails identifying the appropriate sponsor for research (e.g., foundation, federal, industry, etc.), identifying the appropriate mechanism of support (e.g., fellowship, pilot or seed funding, or research grant), and writing the proposal itself. Each of these tasks requires knowledge of an extensive amount of information. Research administrators can greatly assist junior faculty with the tasks involved in obtaining research funding. • First, whether through tacit knowledge or a computerized system, administrators know how to find out which agencies are sponsoring research. This may involve doing on-line searches, through Community of Science, for example, or searching the listing of Requests for Application on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) website. 188 2005 Symposium Proceedings Book
Papers • Second, research administrators can help junior investigators identify appropriate funding mechanisms. For example, a junior faculty member who has no history of NIH funding and is looking for $25,000 in a fairly short timeframe should be looking for foundation funding, as opposed to submitting an R01 grant. • Third, by virtue of having seen many research proposals, research administrators may be able to assist junior investigators in actual grant writing. Typically, they would not be able to assist with the science, but good grantsmanship requires more than good science. Administrators can work with junior faculty to help them articulate their research ideas and develop specific goals for their research. They can assist with the structure and organization of grants and may be able to contribute to standardized sections (e.g., descriptions of resources or other boilerplate information). Good grantsmanship requires that the proposal should be understandable by a layperson, therefore, even if a research administrator does not have a scientific background, he/she should be able to understand what the research project is, why it is important, and how the investigator is going to carry it out. Experience at Duke and UNC Experience at our two institutions (Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) has taught us that research administrators have a great deal of knowledge and experience to offer junior faculty, making the inclusion of a research administrator on a mentoring team a worthy endeavor. Both UNC and Duke have considerable experience in the training of new investigators in the art and science of research. Our combined totals for the following categories of training awards include: forty-five F32s, twenty-six K01s, thirty-six K08s, fifty-three K23s, and seven K12 awards. K30 Program: Both Duke and UNC are recipients of the NIH-funded K30 Clinical Research Training Programs. These grants offer formalized academic programs in the quantitative and methodological techniques of clinical research. At both UNC and Duke, the K30 trainees include fellows and junior faculty from a variety of health professions. Mentored Clinical Research Scholar Program (MCRSP): The MCRSP is funded by the National Center for Research Resources at both Duke and UNC and is a prototype for the K12 awards. It involves a structured didactic and applied research curriculum designed to foster training in patient-oriented clinical research. Faculty members selected for their expertise, experience, and commitment to training provide oversight of the program and/or serve as research mentors. Each trainee participates in a formal multidisciplinary didactic program that can lead to a master’s degree. The various components of the program include mentored research, professional skills development, and formal training in responsible conduct of research. At Duke, MCRSP participants include both post-doctoral physicians pursuing subspecialty or primary care training and junior faculty members. At UNC, all MCRSP participants are junior faculty physicians from the School of Medicine and junior faculty dentists from the School of Dentistry. Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) Program: The BIRC- WH is funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at both UNC and Duke. The primary goal of this program is to expand an institution’s activities in women’s health research. Most of the elements of the program are quite similar to the MCRSP described above. UNC was funded in 2000 with the initial cohort of BIRCWH Programs and has to date enrolled seventeen (17) junior faculty members across three of the Schools on our Health Affairs campus. To date, UNC’s BIRCWH Scholars have included: 1 PharmD; 6 PhDs; 1 MD-PhD; and 9 physicians. Disciplines and departments are quite diverse as is the spectrum of research activity that ranges from basic to translational and patient-oriented to population sciences. The Duke BIRCWH was funded in 2002 and collaborates in training with North Carolina Central University, 2005 Symposium Proceedings Book 189
Page 1:
2005 Symposium Proceedings The SRA
Page 7:
Dear Colleagues and Friends, Octobe
Page 10 and 11:
Table of Contents Karen M. Wilson.
Page 13:
Poster Abstracts
Page 16 and 17:
Poster Abstracts Poster Abstract 20
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Poster Abstracts Contributed Poster
Page 34 and 35:
Page 37:
Papers
Page 40 and 41:
Papers The principles of respect fo
Page 42 and 43:
Papers The narrative approach, on t
Page 44 and 45:
Papers References Agre, P., Campbel
Page 46 and 47:
Papers Potts, A., Grace, V., Gavey,
Page 48 and 49:
Papers Introduction Day by day soci
Page 50 and 51:
Papers Brent: Karl has been a great
Page 52 and 53:
Papers Karl: During my time at the
Page 54 and 55:
Papers Work Hard. Another very impo
Page 56 and 57:
Papers External Resource Acquisitio
Page 58 and 59:
Papers Generally speaking, fundrais
Page 60 and 61:
Papers Organizations and websites t
Page 62 and 63:
Papers Public HBCUs and smaller chu
Page 64 and 65:
Papers There are key databases avai
Page 66 and 67:
Papers 2. Basic Institutional Compo
Page 68 and 69:
Papers The Utility of Gender, Race,
Page 70 and 71:
Papers As a three hospital health c
Page 72 and 73:
Papers References Amdur, R., Banker
Page 74 and 75:
Papers • Dramatic Growth in Resea
Page 76 and 77:
Papers • Cross Unit Collaboration
Page 78 and 79:
Papers The Development, Implementat
Page 80 and 81:
Papers Background: IRBs in AMCs hav
Page 82 and 83:
Papers Institutional Quality Improv
Page 84 and 85:
Papers Institutional Audit Findings
Page 86 and 87:
Papers References: Burke, G.S. (200
Page 88 and 89:
Papers Table 1 Total Number of Prot
Page 90 and 91:
Papers Sunday, December 7, 2003. D
Page 92 and 93:
Papers Similarly, the OGE audit ind
Page 94 and 95:
Papers Changes to 5 C.F.R. §5501.1
Page 96 and 97:
Papers * * * However, § 5501.106(c
Page 98 and 99:
Papers 4. Conclusion The NIH Februa
Page 100 and 101:
Papers Within the context of a mana
Page 102 and 103:
Papers As illustrated (Figure 1) th
Page 104 and 105:
Papers Figure 3. Recommendation lev
Page 106 and 107:
Papers References Australian Vice-C
Page 108 and 109:
Papers The Problem and Its Statemen
Page 110 and 111:
Papers ated directly or indirectly
Page 112 and 113:
Papers Table 1: Survey Respondents
Page 114 and 115:
Papers Conclusions With the creatio
Page 116 and 117:
Papers APPENDIX 2 I. Research Admin
Page 118 and 119:
Papers facing patients being recrui
Page 120 and 121:
Papers Even if prospective subjects
Page 122 and 123:
Papers sponsors must have some idea
Page 124 and 125:
Papers 4) Heuristics: Since the con
Page 126 and 127:
Papers Hochhauser, M. Informed Cons
Page 128 and 129:
Papers How “readable” are conse
Page 130 and 131:
Papers of vowels per word, some on
Page 132 and 133:
Papers followed by 39 side effect b
Page 134 and 135:
Papers References Chall, J.S. & Dal
Page 136 and 137:
Papers Coping involves the effort t
Page 138 and 139:
Papers Conclusion Defense mechanism
Page 140 and 141:
Papers of Pennsylvania in 2000. In
Page 142 and 143:
Papers for board members, reviewing
Page 144 and 145:
Papers Focusing on “Development
Page 146 and 147:
Papers Figure 1: Total UB Internal
Page 148 and 149:
Papers Figure 3: Academic staff vie
Page 150 and 151: Papers Respondents’ evaluations o
Page 152 and 153: Papers 140 2005 Symposium Proceedin
Page 154 and 155: Papers ing proposals, the greater t
Page 156 and 157: Papers Abstract “Best Practices
Page 158 and 159: Papers INSTITUTIONAL ERA PLANNING A
Page 160 and 161: Papers process than an end product;
Page 162 and 163: Papers realization of the benefits
Page 164 and 165: Papers State and private institutio
Page 166 and 167: Papers Institutions of higher educa
Page 168 and 169: Papers Typically, all interactions
Page 170 and 171: Papers Figure 2 There are nine pers
Page 172 and 173: Papers Questions that can be discus
Page 174 and 175: Papers Using the innovation success
Page 176 and 177: Papers students in non-science subj
Page 178 and 179: Papers For example, to address inno
Page 180 and 181: Papers The second is the Botswana T
Page 182 and 183: Papers manpower is not trained, and
Page 184 and 185: Papers European and Federal Funding
Page 186 and 187: Papers As the majority of US Univer
Page 188 and 189: Papers Integrated Project Duration
Page 190 and 191: Papers up to these terms (called
Page 192 and 193: Papers Collective responsibility -
Page 194 and 195: Papers • Revised implementation p
Page 196 and 197: Papers Conclusion SRA is an interna
Page 198 and 199: Papers Virgin Territory: The Role o
Page 202 and 203: Papers a historically black univers
Page 204 and 205: Papers Benefits of Working with Jun
Page 206 and 207: Papers Human Subjects Research and
Page 208 and 209: Papers observational and could do v
Page 210 and 211: Papers ted on patients at l’Hopit
Page 212 and 213: Papers The pastor of the Bergen hos
Page 214 and 215: Papers it was at any rate an imposs
Page 216 and 217: Papers The Environmental Protection
Page 218 and 219: Papers of the restriction on the he
Page 220 and 221: Papers Mentoring and Motivating: Br
Page 222 and 223: Papers more importantly, individual
Page 224 and 225: Papers with little or no cash outla
Page 226 and 227: Papers better outcomes for areas th
Page 228 and 229: Papers attention of the research of
Page 230 and 231: Papers discussion of each prepropos
Page 232 and 233: Papers Appendix A Sample Feedback N
Page 234 and 235: Papers Introduction Certification p
Page 236 and 237: Papers The list of certified resear
Page 238 and 239: Papers Research Question 2 What is
Page 240 and 241: Papers 8. Twenty-nine percent (29%)
Page 242 and 243: Papers individuals outside their or
Page 244 and 245: Papers References Bratton, B. & Hil
Page 246 and 247: Papers Never let your sense of mora
Page 248 and 249: Papers Lakoff (2002) describes inte
Page 250 and 251:
Papers place blame at the feet of i
Page 252 and 253:
Papers Lower, G. (2005, June 27). W
Page 254 and 255:
Papers Institute of Ecosystem Studi
Page 256 and 257:
Papers • Collaborative research p
Page 258 and 259:
Papers How Administrators Can Help
Page 260 and 261:
Papers How to Develop a Centralized
Page 262 and 263:
Papers The current trend of selecti
Page 264 and 265:
Papers References Kaiser Daily Heal
Page 266 and 267:
Papers 254 2005 Symposium Proceedin
Page 268 and 269:
Papers 256 2005 Symposium Proceedin
Page 270 and 271:
Papers Evaluation of Strategies for
Page 272 and 273:
Papers on research activity; manage
Page 274 and 275:
Papers 4. Introduction of encourage
Page 276 and 277:
Papers Table 1 Research Attitudes -
Page 278 and 279:
Papers Constraints When staff were
Page 280 and 281:
Papers Houston, D. & Studman, C.J.,
Page 282 and 283:
Papers to look at the technologies
Page 284 and 285:
Papers areas of responsibilities. T
Page 287:
Symposium Future Proposals
Page 290 and 291:
Symposium Future Proposals Symposiu
Page 292 and 293:
Symposium Future Proposals Symposiu
show all

The SRA Symposium - College of Medicine

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?