NORDP 2018 Annual Research Development Conference

Concurrent Session 2
Tuesday, May 8, 2018, 1:15–2:15 p.m.

Who's on First?: Collaborating to Cover Bases Along the Faculty Career Spectrum

Room: Potomac I  •  Pillar: RD Fundamentals

Download the Presentation PDF

Presenters

  • Sarah Ott, Hanover Research
  • Beth LaPensee, University of Michigan
  • Jill Jividen, University of Michigan

Description

Research development plays a crucial role in funding success along a faculty member’s entire career spectrum. While some support services are applicable to everyone, there are distinct needs to address among early career, mid-career and seasoned faculty, particularly in regards to the types of grants they seek and how to maintain funding for established labs. Ideally, research development offices will have blended models of support, with certain resources tailored to each career stage and others relevant to a broad customer base. Additionally, there is the marked challenge of knowing how to support mid-career faculty whose funding has stalled or who are ready to take the next step to larger, collaborative, center-type grants. This panel will offer a model for a comprehensive package of proposal development and support services intended to address needs by career stage, with a special focus on strategies to stimulate success for mid-career investigators. Presenters will provide outcomes of their implementations, including successes and challenges associated with various initiatives.


Non-Traditional Pathways to Becoming a CRO

Room: Potomac II  •  Pillar: LDRD

Presenters

  • Jasmin Patel, Saint Louis University
  • Ken Olliff, Saint Louis University
  • David Stone, Oakland University

Description

The role of the vice president for research is changing as rapidly as the research funding landscape is shifting. New models of public/private partnerships are becoming more common, compliance requirements are rapidly shifting, and political changes have direct and indirect implications for the university research environment. Traditionally, VPRs are specialists and scientists who have to rapidly understand a complex landscape and learn to become generalists. Some universities are experimenting with different approaches to the VPR role – selecting generalists with a strong understanding of university operations and demonstrated leadership in a complex research environment. Much of the work of being a VPR involves working outside of one’s area of expertise and making judgement when there are no specific metrics for data-informed decision making. Thus nontraditional pathways and educational backgrounds can be an asset for the VPR.

At this presentation two nontraditional chief research officers will discuss their paths to the VPR role and how their experience and training have helped them be effective in the position. They will also discuss challenges and obstacles they have faced as nontraditional VPRs and strategies for effective management.


Perspectives from Federal Funding Agencies: NSF / DoD/USDA 

Room: Potomac III  •  Pillar: Funder

Download the Presentation PDF

Presenters

  • Dale Ormond, Principal Director, Research, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Research & Engineering
  • Brian Bornstein, Program Director, Law and Social Sciences, National Science Foundation
  • Mark Mirando, National Program Leader of Animal Nutrition, Growth and Reproduction, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture
  • Moderator: Mary Beth Curtain, Binghamton, University

 


RD: Achieving the Greatest Impact by Understanding the Range of Possible Contributions from Program Evaluators

Room: Potomac IV  •  Pillar: Other Topics

Presenters

  • Michael Preuss, West Texas A&M University
  • Kirk Knestis, Hezel Associates

Description

The relationship of evaluation and grant-funded activity is evolving, creating the need for new collaborative patterns between the principal investigator(s) and project evaluators. The priorities identified in the 2013 Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development challenge evaluators to move beyond typical formative and summative evaluation activities that examine program implementation and outcomes, and instead identify how best to support PIs in providing a critical review of the quality and rigor of research associated with the project. Simultaneously, specific description and representation of the nature and value of the innovation being implemented, studied, and/or developed has been emphasized as a central tenet of federally-funded grant projects. This includes relationships among project components and anticipated outcomes of the innovation, the general and local maturity of the proposed undertaking, past evidence of effectiveness, and within-project, publication-quality research of effectiveness. By taking a broader view of “evaluation,” evaluators and project teams can improve project design, assessment of rigor and quality of existing evidence of effectiveness, the approach for studying proposed innovations, and can integrate “programmatic,” "research," and "evaluation" functions necessary for a compelling proposal and successful project. This presentation will describe multiple considerations in and helpful patterns for the evolving relationship between project teams and evaluators from the point of project conception through dissemination, close-out, and identification of subsequent undertakings. Concepts shared will be scaled to address the needs and concerns of institutions with little, moderate, and substantial research development support. This unique session will address research development fundamentals, professional development, and funder updates while considering a topic rarely addressed at NORDP conferences.


Interdisciplinary Team Science Proposal Development

Room: Potomac V  •  Pillar: RD Fundamentals

Download the Presentation PDF

Presenters

  • Holly Falk-Krzesinski, Elsevier
  • Deborah Rocha, Indiana University Bloomington

Description

Interdisciplinary team science grant proposals differ along two facets from standard research grants: application components and review criteria. Team science proposals tend to be all around more complex, necessitate unique application sections, and require special attention to activities such as project management. And recently, funders such as the NIH and NSF are shifting toward more explicit guidance related to review criteria used for proposal evaluation, which differ from standard research grant review criteria. It is thus essential for research development professionals to understand the unique aspects of interdisciplinary team science opportunities.


Better Together: How Joining Forces Led to Maximized Success

Room: Potomac VI  •  Pillar: LDRD

Download the Presentation PDF

Presenters

  • Eileen Murphy, Rutger University Foundation
  • Brent Burns, Michigan Technological University
  • Kerry Morris, Valdosta State University
  • Rachel Dresbeck, Oregon Health & Science University

Description

NORDP members who are also members of:

  • Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers (NACRO) and
  • Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE)
  • Association for Healthcare Philanthropy
  • University Industry Demonstration Partnership

Propose a panel style presentation appropriate for all audiences describing the importance of building strong connections and partnerships among Research Development professionals and potential key partners at their institutions - Corporate & Foundation Relations, Alumni Relations, Career Services, Faculty Development, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer & Commercialization, and Government Relations. The panelists presented an overview of this general topic in 2017 and propose this year to go into more depth with more intensive examples of successful case studies.

The case studies are:

  • Michigan Technological University: We will demonstrate how a joint customer relationship management (CRM) tool and administrator between Research Development and Industry Relations has led to increased sponsored research opportunities.
  • Oregon Health & Science University: We will demonstrate how to re-start collaborations between Research Development and Corporate & Foundation Relations after many leadership changes and changes in focus.
  • Rutgers Biomedical Health Sciences: We will demonstrate how collaboration between CFR, Alumni Relations, and the Research Office led to the development of a successful corporate model, one that the corporation has reported “will be the model we use with all our university partners.”
  • Valdosta State University: Will demonstrate the value of RD and CR relationships for the PUI by showing how we have successfully joined with business and industry to support research and programming at our institution. What proved to be a delicate process for some required a change of mindset and a move away from traditional corporate sponsorships.

There will also be a question and answer session at the end of the presentation to open a broader discussion with the audience.


Distilling Your Message

Room: Tidewater 2  •  Pillar: RD Fundamentals

Presenters

Download the Presentation PDF
  • Susannah Gal, Penn State Harrisburg

Description

In these times of attack on higher education and the research endeavor, it is more important than ever for faculty to distill a message into accessible chunks for journalists, policy makers, donors and the general public. This presentation will demonstrate two complementary tools for this purpose: Concept Paper and Message Box. Research development professionals can implement these tools in working with faculty at small and large institutions. Helping faculty to develop the skill of communicating effectively to a broad audience will allow them to be better at responding to federal funding opportunities so they can be resilient in this time of a shifting research landscape. In this presentation, you will learn about The Concept Paper and Message Box tools and practice distilling a faculty’s message using provided examples. The materials and resources are free. The Concept Paper involves a series of questions that faculty answer about their work, including: What do you want to do? Why is it important? Who cares? What difference will it make? The Message Box is an approach to assist faculty in describing the relevance of their work for journalists and policy makers. Using 5 sectors of a rectangle labeled: Problem, So what, Benefit, Solutions and Issue, faculty are encouraged to convert their work into one sentence in each sector. These two approaches can produce similar results. The Message Box is shorter, appropriate for brief conversations and the Concept Paper usually results in a one-page document that can be shared with potential collaborators, funders, donors or research development professionals. After the practice session, you will have insight on how these tools could be used with faculty at your institution. These tools provide faculty with insights on their work that they never realized and a newfound appreciation for how challenging and important this conversation can be. They also come away with a workable document to use with a variety of people.


Strategies and Tools for Promoting a Grant Seeking Culture in the Arts and Humanities

Room: Roosevelt, 3rd floor  •  Pillar: RD Fundamentals

Download the Presentation PDF

Presenters

  • Barbara Walker, University of California Santa Barbara
  • Holly Unruh, California State University Monterey Bay
  • Paige Belisle, Harvard University
  • Jim Izat, Texas A&M University
  • Anne Pascucci, Christopher Newport University
  • Stefanie Walker, National Endowment for the Humanities

Description

With the merits of funding for the arts and humanities a topic of political debate, encouraging faculty to pursue sponsored opportunities has never seemed more challenging. In the face of these often-discouraging dialogues, how can we support researchers and creatives who may be completely new to pursuing funding opportunities altogether? RD “business as usual” is not always effective among faculty in these disciplines, who have a completely different set of motivations, barriers, and skills than faculty in STEM fields. This presentation will offer concrete examples of programs, resources, and best practices to promote a grant seeking culture in the arts and humanities. We will draw strategies and tools from multiple institutions, including the new book “Funding Your Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences: A Practical Guide to Grant and Fellowship Proposals” (Endemaño Walker and Unruh) and the perspective of a reviewer at a funding agency. Our panel will discuss:

  • Outreach to arts and humanities faculty who are new to pursuing sponsored funding, including best practices for disseminating announcements and newsletters to a broad, often multidisciplinary audience;
  • Examples of strategic programming, such as grantsmanship training programs specific to arts and humanities faculty;
  • How to work with arts and humanities faculty at a PUI or as an RD “office of one”;
  • What a humanist’s research question might look like, and how RD professionals with a background in the physical or life sciences can assist during the proposal development process; and
  • Insights into arts and humanities funding agency decision-making and suggestions for creative approaches and partnerships.

Ideas Lab Workshop: Starting a Grand Challenge Initiative & Picking/Proposing a Grand Challenge Topic: Issues & Decisions from the University and the Research Team Perspectives (Part 1)

Room: Lincoln, 3rd floor  •  Pillar: Idea Lab

Download the Presentation PDF

Organizers

  • Eva Allen, Indiana University
  • Sarah Archibald, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Jennifer Lyon Gardner, The University of Texas at Austin
  • Michelle Popowitz, UCLA
  • Sarah Rovito, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
  • Amy Spellacy, The Ohio State University

Description

Please join us for one of two sessions organized by members of a newly formed Community of Practice for University-Led Grand Challenges. Building on the recently published Report on University-Led Grand Challenges, participants will discuss topics related to Starting a Grand Challenge Initiative and Picking or Proposing a Specific Grand Challenge. Participants will be given the option to engage in discussions from both the University perspective and the perspective of the research team proposing a specific Grand Challenge (or similar large scale effort). This session is designed for participants to share their experiences and learn from their peers. As there are more topics to discuss than feasibly can be addressed in one hour, the organizers will send out a survey via the NORDP listserv in advance to narrow the topics. The goals for the session are to enhance knowledge, share experiences, provide networking opportunities and identify ways the Community of Practice might work together to support those campuses starting Grand Challenge initiatives.

NOTE: While this is one of two sessions, the two sessions are designed to be complementary; participants will encounter different topics in each session, and may usefully attend either one of the two, or both sessions.