NORDP 2019 Annual Research Development Conference

Concurrent Session 2 
Tuesday, April 30, 2019 • 9:45am–10:45am

Becoming a Research Development Investigator: An Interactive Session on Applying for NORDP/InfoReady Funding


Presenter: Dave Stone, PhD, Oakland University

In an effort to stimulate research in Research Development, InfoReady has provided funding to support small studies. The session will have three goals: 1) to describe the range of types of research the program is looking for, 2) to discuss the review criteria used to select projects, and 3) to provide an interactive opportunity to discuss ideas for research into Research Development that would help move the field forward and that could also be funded by other sources. If time permits, we will also discuss the types of research that would treat RD as an area for study available, for example, to science policy researchers, organizational leadership, or the science of team science.

Training the Next Generation: Planning, Development and Implementation of Training Programs in RD


Presenters: Page Sorensen, University of California-San Francisco; Samarpita Sengupta, UT Southwestern Medical Center; Joanna Downer, Duke University School of Medicine

This panel will present the recommendations of the NORDP Training working group and describe experiences in planning, developing, and implementing training/internship programs in Research Development. The working group’s recommendations will provide context for discussing on-the-ground experiences with two RD training programs, including the rationales for and defining traits of the programs, as well as qualitative and quantitative results. We will also show how the framework and elements of the existing models have been used to plan and initiate a third internship program to meet the needs and strengths of a distinct context.

Download presentation

Practice Makes PAREfect: Internal Peer Reviews


Presenters: Katie Howard, Appalachian State University; Karen Fletcher, Appalachian State University

Can you increase the success rate of proposals that have been reviewed prior to submission? Peer Assisted Review Enterprise (PARE) is an internal peer review system at Appalachian State University, a PUI, that is designed to support the limited submission process and internal funding mechanisms. It is our internal Red Team program for increasing competitiveness of external grant applications. This session will empower participants to develop a reliable framework to support a successful internal peer review program at their institution. We’ll discuss the evolution of the PARE program to show it can be supported in a variety of ways.

Download presentation

Beyond "Shoot for the Moon and Sink or Swim:" Helping PIs Take a Strategic Approach to Grant Competitiveness 


Presenters: Rebecca Huenink, Hanover Research; René Paulson, Texas Woman's University; Mindy Chandler, Elite Research, LLC

Do you have PIs who fling proposals blindly into the universe, with hardly a care for strategy? Have you tried and failed to get them grounded in the grantseeking earth? In this session, we’ll present concrete approaches to helping PIs:

  • Understand how grant competitiveness work;
  • Assess their own readiness for competitions;
  • Strategically build competitiveness; and
  • Submit the right grant proposals at the right time.

We’ll discuss how a strategic approach to building grant competitiveness can help PIs and institutions invest their grantseeking time and energy wisely, for maximum return on investment and long-term research success.

Download presentation

Employing Tactical and Strategic Approaches to Help Faculty Maximize Broader Impacts


Presenters: Danielle Mazzeo, American Museum of Natural History; Nathan Meier, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Tisha Mullen, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Stephanie Hensel, University of Michigan School of Education

Articulating Broader Impacts (BI) is critical to developing compelling submissions to the National Science Foundation (NSF). BI is an established part of NSF’s merit review process and, now, other agencies are beginning to implement BI mandates as well. This presentation will offer insights, innovative approaches, and an inventory of tools to help research development professionals across different types of institutions support PIs as they conceptualize BI. Presenters represent a variety of career stages and are affiliated with a preeminent scientific and cultural institution, two research-intensive Big Ten institutions, and a young research university with a major academic health center.

Download presentation

Federal Landscape for Nanotechnology Research and Recent Initiatives in Quantum Information Science and Engineering


Lisa Friedersdorf, Ph.D. Director, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office

Download presentation

Designing, Developing and Evaluating Team Science Support in an RD Office


Presenters: Betsy Rolland, University of Wisconsin-Madison Carbone Cancer Center; David Widmer, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Holly Falk-Krzesinski, Elsevier and Northwestern University

As team science expands in size and scope, investigators struggle to build teams and write proposals that implement the principles of team science and take advantage of what we know about making teams work. Outside of the NIH-supported CTSAs, few universities have resources specifically devoted to fostering and facilitating interdisciplinary research teams or writing proposals that give more than perfunctory attention to how the team will function. The goal of this session is to help RD professionals think about how this gap provides an opportunity to expand support for team science initiatives and team science proposal development.

Download presentation

Roundtable Discussions


Internships in Scientific Editing as a Component of Research Development

Facilitator: Christine M. Blaumueller, University of Iowa

Scientific editing has become a key component of some research development offices, and it is crucial to ensure that the editing skills of their staff are excellent. At the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, the Scientific Editing and Research Communication Core has developed a pipeline of scientific editors through a four-month internship program. At this Roundtable, I will outline this program and share some of our training materials. My goal is to have a lively discussion with others who have attempted similar approaches, as well as with scientific writers just starting on this path.

Strategic planning and the Role of Research Development

Facilitator: Karen Eck, Old Dominion University

Have you been involved in developing, writing and/or implementing a research strategic plan at your institution? If you are a veteran of strategic planning or newly tasked with contributing to a strategic planning process, this Roundtable discussion will provide a forum to ask questions and share experience, best practices and missteps on the road to developing a viable strategic plan. One goal of the discussion is to address the role of the RD professional and RD Office in institutional strategic planning.

Lightning Talks