NORDP 2018 Annual Research Development Conference

Concurrent Session 1
Tuesday, May 8, 2018, 10:15–11:15 a.m.

Mentoring Early Stage Investigators in Pursuit of Independent NIH Funding

Room: Potomac I  •  Pillar: RD Fundamentals

Presenters

  • Nicole Moore, Northwestern University
  • Alison Kraigsley, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/NIH
  • Nastaran Zahir, National Cancer Institute / NIH

Description

The NIH funding environment is particularly challenging for early stage investigators (ESIs). New investigators are working to establish an independent research laboratory, hire and train students and postdocs, start teaching, and applying for funding under a very tight timeline (aka tenure). NIH and the academic community are eager to support ESIs in order to balance and strengthen the biomedical research workforce. NIH has taken numerous steps, including ESI policies and programs for early-career investigators, to catalyze more ESI awards. Academic institutions offer mentoring and training programs for early career faculty in biomedical sciences.

This panel presentation will include perspectives from a university research development office and two program officers from NIH Institutes, NCI and NIAID, in mentoring ESIs in pursuit of independent funding. In both environments, academic and government, responding to inquiries from early stage investigators is a high priority. Each panelist will discuss approaches for advising or mentoring ESIs. Available outreach and training programs at the represented Institutions and available online resources will be highlighted. Participants attending the session will learn how program officials are engaging with ESIs, examples of University programs for ESIs, and when to encourage ESIs to engage with their program officials. This knowledge will help elucidate what support is offered by the government and how university research development offices can contribute. This is a new panel discussion that builds on previous panels focused on faculty advancement.


The Little RD Office that Could: Lessons Learned from RD Program Flops

Room: Potomac II  •  Pillar: RD Fundamentals

Download the Presentation PDF

Presenters

  • Karen Fletcher, Appalachian State University
  • Katie Howard, Appalachian State University

Description

It never hurts to try. This session focuses on the many successful and not so successful programs presented through an RD office over the last two years. From the RD basics of finding funding and proposal writing to open writing labs and comprehensive grantsmanship trainings, we will discuss lessons learned from workshop successes and workshop flops. This will be a lighthearted conversation between the presenters and audience.

We will highlight specific examples of effective workshops. We will also examine failed workshop experiments, and how we’ve revised, restyled, and transformed them with the ultimate goal of making these failures stepping stones to success. We will discuss workshop roadblocks like attendance, presentation style, marketing, time of day, time of week, faculty workload, faculty commitment, and cross-departmental collaborations.

We will seek audience feedback for possible “fail remodels” for workshop flops based on the experiences we’ve shared and their own personal experiences (both debacles and victories) with the hope that everyone will leave encouraged and armed with new resolve to tackle the perils of programming.


Building Blocks for Public Engagement with Research

Room: Potomac III  •  Pillar: Other Topics

Download the Presentation PDF

Presenters

  • Anne Pascucci, Christopher Newport University
  • Patricia Moore-Shaffer, National Endowment for the Arts
  • Paula Jasinski, Chesapeake Environmental Communications

Description

At a time where we see an undervaluation of the roles science and scholarship play in our society, what are our strategies to respond, readjust, and help advance our endeavors in research, scholarship, and creative artistry?” Referring to the call for abstracts, this session looks at science communication methods, including policy briefings, blogs, infographics, and interactive visualizations that enhance understanding of research outcomes and that engage the public through clear communication of those outcomes.

Goals:

  • Discuss how the inclusion of professional science communication support is a means of growing impact in not only the traditional sense but through informing and engaging the public, and present a couple of illustrative case studies of how this process has worked successfully
  • Explain how, working together, these resources can influence research and public policy
  • Participants will learn about approaches to science communication and how to access related resources and assess their value at the initial stages of proposal development.
  • Participants will understand the value of this work from the perspective of sponsors and be able to communicate this strength to faculty. The current funding environment demands clear, strategic, universal dissemination of funded research.
  • Participants will gain a better understanding of what science communication includes and how working with a professional service provider helps identify key messages and deliver them to a broad audience.

PEERD: Perspectives from Evaluators and Institutions Evaluated

Room: Potomac IV  •  Pillar: Other Topics

Download the Presentation PDF

Presenters

  • Jerilyn Hansen, Utah State University
  • Kay Tindle, Texas Tech University
  • Peggy Sundermeyer, Trinity University
  • Susan Carter, Retired, UC Merced

Description

The NORDP Program for External Evaluation of Research Development (PEERD) is designed to provide institutions the opportunity for an external evaluation of their research development operations and/or program by a team of qualified NORDP members from peer institutions. This evaluation provides institutions with valuable benchmarking tools, best practices, and guidance to enhance and/or expand research development program activities. The NORDP PEERD team conducts an onsite review of program activities and interviews key stakeholders to determine program strengths, limitations, and opportunities. A detailed report is then provided that is designed to assist research leaders and research development professionals with identifying institutional and stakeholder needs, improving services, and setting strategic directions.

In this panel session, Dr. Peggy Sundermeyer will share her experience as a PEERD reviewer. Susan Carter from UC Merced and Dr. Kay Tindle from Texas Tech University will share their experiences when their institutions were reviewed by the PEERD team. Jerilyn Hansen will provide PEERD program information and answer general program questions. Participants will hear about lessons learned, best practices, and the response and progress their institutions have made since the PEERD review.


Designing Successful Broadening Participation Programs Through Evidence-Based Approaches

Room: Potomac V  •  Pillar: LDRD

Presenters

  • Alicia Knoedler, University of Oklahoma

Description

This session will challenge participants to work together to incorporate evidence-based effective practices to design and/or assess hypothetical programs dedicated to broadening participation of underrepresented groups (broadly defined). In the context of facilitating teams in the development of ideas for funding, we are often familiar with effective practices and share them with program leaders and PIs developing programs. However, we are not as often well-versed in evidence-based practices and approaches nor a thorough knowledge of various funding opportunities and how to adapt the evidence-based practices to fit the solicitations. This session will emphasize working from the information provided to translate the evidence to programmatic elements that program leaders and PIs can adapt and innovate in the context of their own program ideas.


Gender in the Global Research Landscape

Room: Potomac VI  •  Pillar: LDRD

Download the Presentation PDF

Presenters

  • Holly Falk-Krzesinski, Elsevier

Description

There is strong evidence that gender diversity in research leads to higher-impact research, fosters greater innovation, and results in enhanced business performance. Critical issues related to gender diversity must be examined by sound studies and supported by data. The public report, "Gender in the Global Research Landscape," examines research performance through a gender lens to strengthen our understanding of the role of gender within the structure of the global research enterprise. Covering 20 years, 12 major geographies, and 27 subject areas, the report provides powerful evidence-based insight and guidance for intervention and policy development related to gender diversity and equality for research institutions worldwide. This presentation of the report findings will focus on US research within the global landscape.


Building Research Resilience Through International Cooperation: The Example of Horizon 2020

Room: Tidewater 2  •  Pillar: Funder

Download the Presentation PDF

Presenters

  • Mary Kavanagh, Delegation of the European Union
  • Claire Chen, National Council of University Research Administrators
  • Viktoria Bodnarova, EURAXESS North America
  • Cole Donovan, U.S. Department of State

Description

International Cooperation strengthens the resilience of research activities by offering economies of scale and scope; providing access to expertise, equipment and facilities; helping build networks and alliances; and offering opportunities for business and commercialization as well as career development and possibilities for cross disciplinary/ cross-border fertilization of ideas. It is also essential to tackle global societal challenges.

The European Union's Horizon 2020 programme is the world's largest multinational research and innovation funding programme, with over $80 billion available over 7 years (2014 to 2020) to support scientifically-excellent research, innovation, and technological development, through collaborative research projects as well as grants and fellowships to individuals. It is 'Open to the World'. This means that US researchers can participate in, or collaborate with, EU funded projects. They may also apply for individual fellowships.

This session will provide an overview of EU-US cooperation in S&T and its relevance to creating resilient research ecosystems. It will introduce Horizon 2020 and the support available both for collaborative research and for individual researchers. The information resources available to researchers and research administrators interested in US-EU research collaboration and research fellowships will be presented.


What Happens after Submission? Understanding Proposal Review Processes

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

Download the Presentation PDF

Presenters

  • Michael Spires, Oakland University

Description

Drawing on the presenter's personal experience as both an RD professional and a proposal reviewer, previous presentations, and published research (e.g., Falk-Krzesinski & Tobin, J. Res. Admin. (2015)), this presentation will describe - and distinguish between - the various ways in which sponsors review proposals, and how the format of the review should be used to help focus the way in which the proposal is written. Examples of the standard review methods (i.e., ad hoc and panel) and the differences between internal, board, external, and external peer review will be provided. Utilizing the eight-question matrix developed by Falk-Krzesinski and Tobin, standard components of proposals will be mapped to review criteria, providing a framework within which to develop a proposal where each part contributes to making a cogent and compelling argument that the project in question is significant, appropriate, adequately resourced, and likely to succeed. Additionally, appropriate strategies for revising and resubmitting a declined proposal will be discussed for each of the standard review methodologies.


Resiliency: Research Development Strategies to Engage and Promote Faculty Flourishing

Room: Lincoln  •  Pillar: RD Fundamentals

Download the Presentation PDF

Presenters

  • Kerry Morris, Valdosta State University
  • Susannah Gal, Penn State-Harrisburg
  • Marilyn Korhonen, University of Oklahoma
  • Barbara Wygant, Van Andel Research Institute

Description

Every RD professional needs to know how to engage faculty and promote the flourishing of faculty members’ research. This fundamental skill is made more challenging by changes in institutional leadership, resources, and other environmental conditions. In this session, we concentrate on four strategies to engage faculty and describe the approaches, tools, and takeaways associated with each strategy in our individual contexts (independent research institute, PUI, campus of a top-50 research university, and R1 in an EPSCoR/IDEA state). Participants will learn formulas for successful faculty engagement based on the four strategies: building relationships to enable personal outreach, re-engaging disconnected researchers, focusing or targeting on specific faculty or groups of faculty, and collaborating with others to engage and serve faculty.

From a concierge of services to boutique approaches, we are challenged with developing a program as unique as the faculty and research we support. Faculty members are not always aware of the extent of services the RD office provides. Many of the approaches presented here involve ways to shift a faculty culture to one of research or to one where the concept of research development is better understood, all with the goal of faculty seeing the staff as a useful resource.

Presenters will share lessons learned and what works to cultivate internal relations and better support and empower faculty, which leads to increased engagement in applying for research funding. Guided audience discussion will follow the presentations. Faced with diminishing resources, participants will take away tools and learn new strategies that can help them recharge faculty engagement in research development at their institution, including several suggestions that are free to low-cost to implement.