The SRA Symposium - College of Medicine

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Papers How Administrators Can Help the Process and How the Process Helped Me Understanding the process makes facilitating the process easier. Participating in the process increases insight. Understanding and insight are useful tools to possess when tasked with writing research agreements, preparing proposals and managing subcontracts. Being part of the process has helped me step back and reevaluate some of the preconceptions I have had. Not all collaborators are the same; not all institutions are the same. Some institutions, just like some individuals, respond more quickly than others. Collaborators are not always friends nor do they always like each other personally but they may respect each other professionally. Sometimes it is a “marriage” driven by necessity rather than desire. It may not be a startling revelation but not everyone agrees and not everyone works at the same pace, but it is a fact that is easily forgotten. Waiting for input from one or more of my collaborators has made me aware of how frustrating it can be for a researcher in another institution to be waiting for my office to issue a subcontract so that they can begin their work. The prompt issuance of a subcontract can be very helpful to maintaining cordial collaborative relationships. Since these relationships can be new, tenuous, starting the relationship on a note of discord can be very counterproductive. As my esteemed colleague, Dr. Peter M. Groffman, often reminds me, ”A little kindness really helps the wheels of the world spin more smoothly!” As Research Administrators, we need to do our part to ensure that we facilitate the process, not impede the process. Negotiating a subcontract, for example, is not a competition where one administrator or institution wins and another loses. If it is not a win/win situation in which the rights of all parties, including the funding agency, are protected, then it may become a lose/lose situation for everyone. No time is wasted when administrators take the initiative to step out of their role to gain insight into the problems and to understand the complexities of colleagues. The rewards outweigh the effort and the insight gained is priceless. However, it takes individual initiative to do this – to reach beyond a “process the paper” approach in order to attain a feeling of ownership in the outcome. Conclusion Of course, collaborations among people can be done without institutional involvement. All that is needed is the desire, the need and the trust. However, when a transfer of money is involved, especially federal money, an institutional framework is necessary because institutions have multiple responsibilities. The challenge is to provide a helpful and supportive framework that does not impede progress or insert unnecessary burdens. A good Research Administrator rises to this challenge and accepts it as a routine part of the job! Collaborations can be a frequent source of problems (Magnus, Kalichman, 2002; Likens, 2001) due to their varying forms and complex nature. Misunderstandings, unproductive collaborators, authorship issues, data analysis disagreements can singly or collectively taint the relationship. While communication and understanding are key ingredients, a Research Administrator who is attuned to the process can be invaluable. Being part of a collaborative group helps one to appreciate the importance of flexibility, a key ingredient in any collaboration as well as a desirable quality in a good administrator. Constructing a good agreement, making sure that the statement of work received in the proposal stage is clear and is agreed to by the parties involved, expediting paperwork as quickly as possible and maintaining a cordial relationship with collaborating institutions can help strengthen the relationship. Collaborations do not stop with the researchers involved in the project; they include the institutional administrators that manage for them. 246 2005 Symposium Proceedings Book
Working collaboratively with members of the research staff is a good way to hone your working relationship and bring it to a new level of understanding and respect. Think about collaborating on writing a paper on how your roles interact, work with the research staff to plan a workshop aimed at helping each other to understand how your roles interrelate, write a proposal for funding for a Responsible Conduct in Research Project. The rewards will be worth the effort. According to the U.S. Department of Energy National Collaboratories, “One does not deploy a collaboratory, one builds a collaboratory,” and in the process can build a better working relationship and mutual understanding that will serve the institution, the faculty and sponsored projects staff well. References Papers Fishbough, M.S.E. (1997), Models of Collaboration. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Kotock, Alan (2004), Collaboratories: Encouraging Remote Scientific Collaborations, Science – The Next Wave, U.S.: AAAS. Likens, Gene E. (1998), Limitations to Intellectual Progress in Ecosystem Science. In Successes, limitations, and Frontiers in ecosystem science, edited by M.L. Pace and P. M. Groffman, New York: Springer-Verlag. Likens, Gene E. (2001), Ecosystems: Energetics and Biogeocehmistry. A New Century of Biology, edited by W. J. Kress and G.W. Barrett, Smithsonian Press, Washington, pp.53-88. Loan-Clark, J., & Preston, D. (2002), Tensions and Benefits in Collaborative Research Involving a University and Another Organization. Studies in Higher Education 27(2), 169-185. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hoewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Magnus, P.D., Kalichman, M. (2002). Collaboration. From RCR Education Consortium – Online Resource for RCR Instructors - http://rcrec.org/r/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func= display&meid=79&ceid=45 McGrath, Diane (2004). Strengthening collaborative work. Learning and Leading with Technology 31, no. 530-33, Fall 2004. Murphy, K. Cifuentes, L. & Shih, Y (2004). Online collaborative documents for research and coursework, Tech Trends. 49 (3), 40-44, May/July 2004. Smith, Marie F. (2004). Subcontracting Primer: The ABCs of Agreements Between Collaborators, The Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, Arlington, VA, Volume XXXV, Number 1, pp 25-31. U.S. Department of Energy National Collaboratories, http://www.doecollaboratory.org/overview. html U.S. General Accounting Office (1998). Technology Transfer: Administration of the Bayh-Dole Act by Research Universities, CAO/RCED-98-126, Washington, D.C. Woodrow, Raymond (1978). Management for Research in U.S. Universities, National Association of College and University Business Officers, Washington, D.C. 2005 Symposium Proceedings Book 247
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 200 and 201:
Papers and in which disciplines. Th
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 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?