RMR
RESEARCH MANAGEMENT REVIEW
The Journal of the National Council
of University Research Administrators
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
RMR
RESEARCH MANAGEMENT REVIEW
The Journal of the National Council
of University Research Administrators
Concerned with the broad range of issues affecting the administration of research, Research
Management Review provides a forum for the dissemination of knowledge about the study and
practice of the profession of research administration. Research Management Review (ISSN 1068-4867)
is published periodically by the National Council of University Research Administrators at 1015 18th
Street, NW, Ste. 901, Washington, DC 20036. Copies are available only electronically from the
NCURA Web site at: www.ncura.edu
Manuscripts, manuscript concepts, and letters to the editor are welcome and should be submitted to
Jennifer Shambrook, Ph.D., at jennifer.shambrook@stjude.org.
Manuscripts for Volume 20, Number 2 will be accepted until March 1, 2014.
ii
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
iii
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
EDITORIAL STAFF
Jennifer Shambrook, Ph.D., Editor
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital
Bridgette Pfister, MBA, Clemson University (Indexing)
Erin L. Sherman, MAcc, CRA, CIP, Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi
(Format Review)
Beryline Temple, M.S., University of Central Arkansas (Author Agreements)
Lee Carpenter, M.A., Copy Editor
The Pennsylvania State University
EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD
Rebecca Antley, CRA—Medical University of South Carolina
Tim Atkinson, Ed.D.—University of Central Arkansas
Theresa Bailey, Ph.D.—Butler Institute of Research and Scholarship
Nancy Bell, Ph.D.—Research Image
Jamie Caldwell, MBA—Loyola University of Chicago
John Carfora, Ed.D.—Loyola Marymount University
Milton T. Cole, Ph.D.—Villanova University
Jerry Fife, B.S.—Vanderbilt University
Sam Gannon, Ed.D.—Vanderbilt University
Claudia Haywood, JD—J. Craig Venter Institute
Frances Jeffries, Ph.D.—Consultant, Research Capacity and Adult Literacy
Christine C. A. Katsapis, Ph.D.‒Gallaudet University
Robert Killoren, M.A.—President and CEO, The Global Research Enterprise Foundation
Robert Lowman, Ph.D.—University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Michael McCallister, Ph.D.—Consilience International, LLC
Stephen Meinhold, Ph.D.—University of North Carolina Wilmington
Michael L. Nichols, JD, CRA—American University
Julie Norris—Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Emerita
Mildred Ofosu, Ph.D.—Morgan State University
Marjorie Piechowski, Ph.D.—University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Robert Porter, Ph.D.—University of Tennessee
Dhanonjoy Saha, Ph.D.—Carolinas HealthCare System
Garrett Sanders, M.P.A.—Research Foundation of SUNY
William Sharp, Ph.D.—University of Kansas
Steven Smartt, Ph.D.—Vanderbilt University
Tim Strawderman, Ph.D.—University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Cliff Studman, Ph.D.—St John's University of Tanzania
iv
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
RMR
Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Editor’s Note .............................................................................................................................................. vii
http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v19n2_Preface.pdf
University Faculty Value the CRA Designation—They Just Don’t Realize It Yet! ........................1
Kimberly W. Cole, Rutgers University
Online: http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v19n2_Cole.pdf
Getting from Procedures and Approach to Innovation in Grantsmanship ....................................10
Nancy B. Bell, Principal, Research Image
Online: http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v19n2_Bell.pdf
Communicating with Investigators about Financial Compensation for Statistical
Collaboration .............................................................................................................................................21
Richard F. Ittenbach (Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and College of Medicine, University
of Cincinnati), Francis W. DeAngelis (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute, Children’s
Hospital of Philadelphia), and Mekibib Altaye (Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and
College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati)
Online: http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v19n2_Ittenbach_DeAngelis_Altaye.pdf
Case Study: Grant Proposal Development à la FLC (Faculty Learning Community)
Mode ............................................................................................................................................................31
Pollyanne S. Frantz, Appalachian State University
Online: http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v19n2_Frantz.pdf
Case Study: The Final Rule: Implementing New Policies for Financial Conflict of Interest
at the University of Central Florida ........................................................................................................ 40
Andrea Adkins, Tammie McClellan, and John Miner, University of Central Florida
Online: http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v19n2_Adkins.pdf
Book Review: Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in
Practice ........................................................................................................................................................54
Laura Letbetter, Georgia Institute of Technology
Online: http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v19n2_BOOKREVIEW_OpenGovernment_Letbetter.pdf
About the Authors .....................................................................................................................................59
http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v19n2_Authors.pdf
v
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
vi
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
EDITOR’S NOTE
Dear Colleagues,
Richard Ittenbach, Francis DeAngelis,
Welcome to Research Management
and Mekibib Altaye have followed their
Review, Volume 19, Issue 2. In this issue you
contribution in RMR Volume 19(1) with a
will find helpful information from experts
manuscript that extends information on the
in the field of research administration
combined fee-for-service/percent effort
through articles, case studies, and a book
model for statistical collaborators in
review.
Communicating with Investigators about
In the field of research administration
Financial Compensation for Statistical
and management, we are required to wear
Collaboration. This will be of particular
many hats and draw on a number of
interest to those who design grant budgets
strengths. If one were to ask for the most
utilizing the services of statistical
essential positive characteristic needed to
collaborators or manage departments with
serve as a successful member of the research
faculty or staff who provide statistical
community, it is likely that many would
services to the research community.
agree with me that being skilled in the area
CASE STUDIES
of communication is essential. In this issue
Pollyanne Frantz’s contribution adds
of RMR, we offer articles, case studies, and
a book review that will assist us in the
valuable information to our body of
broad area of communication.
knowledge that will be of particular interest
ARTICLES
to those who are interested in piquing the
interest of faculty at primarily
In University Faculty Value the CRA
undergraduate institutions, or departments
Designation – They Just Don’t Realize it Yet!,
in larger institutions who do not typically
Kimberly Cole addresses the paradox
apply for grants. Grant Proposal Development
between the desire for the skills
a la FLC (Faculty Learning Community) Mode
demonstrated in the Certified Research
outlines a case study at Appalachian State
Administrator (CRA) credential and the
University for engaging faculty in grant-
perceived value of the CRA by faculty.
writing.
Nancy Bell furthers the discussion on
Andrea Adkins, Tammie McClellan, and
needed communication to research faculty
John Miner offer the University of Central
with her essay article on the paradigm shift
Florida case study, The Final Rule:
in grant writing in Getting from Procedures
Implementing New Policies for Financial
and Approach to Innovation in Grantsmanship.
Conflict of Interest at the University of Central
vii
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
Florida. This study will provide information
Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation
that you may use at your own institution for
in Practice is a thought-provoking topic.
comparison with your own implementation
Laura Letbetter provides us with an
strategies for the recent FCOI
overview of this body of work to enable you
implementation.
to decide if this is a book you would find
BOOK REVIEW
useful in your own professional
development library.
With the government requiring more
I hope you find the articles included in
and more reporting from research
this issue useful and informative.
institutions that receive federal funding
under the banner of “transparency,” the
Jennifer Shambrook, Ph.D.
recent publication of thirty-four short essays
Editor, Research Management Review
on the topic of Open Government:
November 5, 2013
viii
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
ix
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
University Faculty Value
the CRA Designation—
They Just Don’t Realize It Yet!
Kimberley W. Cole
Rutgers University
ABSTRACT
The Certified Research Administrator (CRA) certification has enjoyed success and recognition
among research administration professionals. However, this recognition is parochial and does
not extend much past the walls of research administration. Results of a recent research study
showed that Principal Investigators value and expect certain aspects of performance and
knowledge from the research administrators at their campuses. These value-added aspects cited
by the Principal Investigators are contained in the Body of Knowledge that comprises the
framework of the CRA certification. However, these same Principal Investigators did not
perceive value in the actual CRA designation held by employees of the research administration
office on their campuses. The CRA designation should invoke recognition of equal stature to
other professional designations from external constituencies, not just within the parameters of
research administration.
INTRODUCTION
views the multiple letter clusters that
In the academic world, clusters of
indicate advanced education and research
letters following an individual’s last name
at the graduate level. This quest for
like PhD, EdD, DBA, MBA, MPH, MA, and
additional designation letters has spilled
MS are highly sought after and easily
over into the business world where CPA,
recognizable by the global academic
CFP, and PE, to name a few, are respected
community. The perception of achievement
and often give a prospective candidate the
and knowledge are synonymous when one
1
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
weight to “tip the scales” in their favor
compiled from a framework referred to as
when it comes to the hiring decision (Lee,
the Body of Knowledge and cover Project
1998). In the opinion of this author, if
Development and Administration, Legal
research faculty were asked whether they
Requirements and Sponsor Interface,
know what CPA stands for, the words
Financial Management, and General
“Certified Public Accountant” will most
Management (RAAC, 2012).
likely be the response. However, when
The Certified Research
Administrator (CRA) is a
professional designation awarded
by a non-profit entity called the
Research Administration
Certification Council (RACC).
research faculty members were asked about
the designation of CRA (Certified Research
Administrator), the response was
significantly different, as noted in the
following research study.
BACKGROUND
The Certified Research Administrator
The CRA certification must be renewed
(CRA) is a professional designation
every five years. Renewal is based on
awarded by a non-profit entity called the
employment and/or notable significant
Research Administration Certification
participation within the field of research
Council (RACC). The RACC is an
administration along with continuing
independent, private organization
education credit hours. To assure quality
comprised of individuals committed to
levels are maintained for recertification,
enhancing the quality of the research
contributions of exam-level questions from
administration professional. CRA
active participants in the field are required
certification is achieved by meeting
for use in future CRA exams, thus assuring
qualifications to sit for the standardized
relevance and timeliness in the content of
CRA examination administered by RACC.
the CRA examination. By adding
Education levels and professional
examination questions from current
experience are factors that regulate
certified practitioners, the content is
eligibility to be able to attempt the
continuously updated and both academic
qualifying exam. Individuals without a
rigor and integrity are assured for the
college degree are able to fill out a petition
common good.
after six years of professional experience in
However, research by Shambrook,
research or sponsored programs
Roberts and Triscari (2011) indicated that
administration to gain access to the
the CRA credential is not positively
examination. The examination questions are
associated with higher salary for research
2
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
administrators. Despite the fact that the
services were to the faculty or principal
CRA designation adds significant weight to
investigator in adding value to research
the standardization of topical knowledge
administration offices. An equal number of
within the dynamic field of research
private and public universities that were
administration, those ascertaining this
recipients of grants from the National
certification are not being recognized for
Institutes of Health (NIH) and National
this professional accomplishment.
Science Foundation (NSF) between 2007‒
Continued lack of acknowledgment may
2009 were included in the study. Responses
well diminish the motivation of professional
were received from 433 Principal
research administrators to pursue CRA
Investigators (PIs) representing 66
certification in the future. Research
institutions of higher education, achieving a
administrators routinely self-report a high
95% confidence interval. While responses
level of stress within their work
from distinct universities were slightly
environment, working in excess of 40 hours
greater on the public side (41 public versus
per week, and feelings of under-
33 private) nearly two thirds (66.3%) of the
appreciation (Shambrook & Brawman-
total responses came from PIs located at
Mintzer, 2007; Shambrook & Roberts, 2011).
private colleges and universities. Yet, there
A professional designation should enhance
were no significant differences in the
the stature of a profession and promote
findings between PIs at public or private
integrity and knowledge within that field.
higher education settings.
Despite the fact that the CRA
designation adds significant
weight to the standardization of
topical knowledge within the
dynamic field of research
administration, those ascertaining
this certification are not being
recognized for this professional
accomplishment.
A professional designation should
enhance the stature of a profession
and promote integrity and
knowledge within that field.
METHOD
for the PIs and an individualized email was
The survey contained a list of 22 items
that research faculty rated as Very
Important, Important, or Less Than
Important (Table 1). A link to the survey,
hosted by SurveyMonkey®, was established
sent. Distribution of personalized emails
The author surveyed 80 research
with the embedded link to the
universities on how important certain
questionnaire is a cost-effective method to
3
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
achieve rapid deployment and allows for
for which no response was registered, the
quick turnaround time (Michaelidou &
importance of the CRA designation
Dibb, 2006). Non-respondents received
received the highest score (63.3%) in the
reminder emails to encourage increased
Less Than Important category. Clearly, the
responses.
CRA certification itself is not important to
RESULTS
PIs in the faculty ranks.
The survey also contained an open-
The average response rate to the
ended question that asked faculty to list
survey items overall was 412. Items #13 and
other important factors that, in their
#19, easy access to research forms and
opinion, would add value to a research
prompt response to emails, respectively,
administration office. The number of
received the largest response with 431
responses was surprising. Of the 433
answering these two survey items. In
surveys, 121 or 28% of the research faculty
contrast, only 319 responses were received
who responded added their own comments
to Item #10, the value of the CRA
in this area. This figure is
designation. The high non-response rate on
uncharacteristically high and points to the
this particular item may lead one to wonder
overall significance of these comments.
if the faculty member was unaware of the
Knowledge and competency of the
very existence of the CRA. When asked how
research administration office staff were
important the CRA designation was to
frequent themes commented upon by
faculty (Item #10) when dealing with their
several respondents. Quotes from actual
primary contact at the research
surveys are provided to maintain the
administration office, only 36 of the
authentic characteristics of the comments.
respondents (11.3%) deemed the CRA
certification to be Very Important. In
addition to being the largest of the 22 items
4
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
Table 1
Summary—Frequencies and Percentages of Importance Ratings for the 22 Services Items
Notes: (1)>90% by PI group
Service Item
1.) Funding Notice to Dept. (2)
2.) Training—New PI/DA (2)
3.) Billings & Collections (2)
4.) Personal Fund Notice (2)
5.) Flexible Negotiations (2)
6.) Web List of Funding (2)
7.) Same Person Pre/Post (2)
8.) Confidential Hotline (2)
9.) One Pre/One Post Person
10.) Cert. Research Admin.
11.) Phone Messages (1)
12.) Training—Updates (2)
13.) E-Z Forms Access (1)
14.) Internal Account Set-up (1)
15.) End Date Notices (2)
16.) Friendly Phone Tone (2)
17.) Flexible Hours
18.) Team Effort (2)
19.) Email Messages (1)
20.) E-Z Policy Access (2)
21.) Technical Assistance (2)
22.) Equal Treatment (2)
(2)>50% by PI group
Very
Important
%
N
111
26.0
164
38.3
140
36.1
148
34.7
154
38.5
137
31.9
129
30.4
72
17.6
67
16.9
36
11.3
274
63.9
103
24.6
306
71.0
282
67.5
191
44.7
147
34.5
59
13.9
176
41.6
312
72.4
198
46.0
214
49.8
219
51.5
5
Less Than
Important
%
N
126
29.5
74
40.7
134
34.5
158
37.1
180
45.0
157
36.5
119
28.1
144
35.1
91
22.9
81
25.4
122
28.4
191
45.7
113
26.2
108
25.8
165
38.6
170
39.9
112
26.5
184
43.5
105
24.4
163
37.9
152
35.3
154
36.2
Important
%
N
190
44.5
90
21.0
114
29.4
120
28.2
66
16.5
136
31.6
176
41.5
194
7.3
239
60.2
202
63.3
33
7.7
124
29.7
12
2.8
28
6.7
71
16.6
109
25.6
252
59.6
63
14.9
14
3.2
69
16.0
64
14.9
52
12.2
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
Response Rate from Faculty on CRA
Designation versus Response to Survey
Items Overall
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Response Rate to CRA
Average Response Rate to
Survey Items
Figure 1. Response Rate from Faculty on CRA Designation vs. Response to
Survey Items Overall
Principal investigators commented on
knowledge to deal with complex contract
the value of the research administrator “to
negotiations and budget issues. The ability
answer questions”, “correct mistakes”, and
to be current in compliance matters and
possess “specialized knowledge of study
with changes in agency rules and prevailing
protocols.”
regulations, as well as dealing with
sponsors, are attributes valued by PIs.
Knowledge and competency of
research administration office staff
were frequent themes commented
upon by several respondents.
These attributes are embedded in the course
CONCLUSION
faculty from both public and private
of study for the initial Certified Research
Administrator designation and also stressed
for recertification.
The survey comments from the research
institutions reflected their wish that
PIs are looking for the research
research administrators to possess
administrator to properly understand the
advanced knowledge in areas included in
research and to have the subject matter
the Body of Knowledge that is the premise
6
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
for the testing questions on the CRA
create awareness among PIs is sorely
examination. Yet, these same faculty or PIs
needed to promote and increase the value
fail to realize the correlation between their
and knowledge of the CRA designation.
‘wants’ versus the significance of the CRA
Just as corporations and individuals
designation held by any research
recognize the necessity to have a CPA for
administrator, which embodies these
their financial affairs, so should research
‘wants’.
faculty demand the rigors found in the CRA
certification for their research
The challenge is to transfer that
perception of value-added held by
research administrators who
actually have achieved CRA
certification status to Principal
Investigators.
administrators.
Educating the research faculty to the
benefits of the CRA certification is a solid
beginning. Promotional literature and
workshop sessions are offered at
conferences and meetings of professional
research administration organizations, but
The challenge is to transfer that
attendants do not include research faculty.
perception of value-added held by research
While professional organizations for
administrators who actually have achieved
research administrators such as the
CRA certification status to Principal
National Council of University Research
Investigators. In turn, Principal
Administrators (NCURA) and the Society
Investigators will become champions of the
for Research Administrators (SRA)
CRA certification. This action may even
International do promote CRA certification,
lead to increased salary levels for CRAs.
the promotional campaign must transcend
Principal Investigators and research faculty
the research administration profession to
generally have the influence (and possible
reach the eyes of research faculty so as to
available funds) to demand CRA
elevate the importance of this certification
designations of research administrators
on a broader basis. Promotion within the
who handle the administration of their
confines of the research administration
research proposals and awards.
profession is not sufficient. Education in
Based on survey comments, CRA
other arenas, such as the community of
certification would address the majority of
research faculty to equate their needs and
the concerns and needs of the research
concerns for research administration with
faculty. Faculty need to realize the value of
the CRA certification, is strongly suggested.
the Certified Research Administrator
Roberts’ study found that nearly two-thirds
certification. A marketing campaign to
of the Certified Research Administrators
7
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
surveyed felt that the CRA experience gave
The research faculty are not the
only audience in need of
enlightenment regarding the
meaning of CRA certification.
Sponsoring agencies should also
be aware of value-added by CRAcertified persons handling the
processing and compliance
monitoring of research awards.
them more confidence in their job
performance (Roberts, 2005).
The Research Administrators
Certification Council is a relatively young,
non-profit organization founded in 1993.
The RACC has made significant progress in
its efforts to elevate the importance of the
role played by research administrators.
Roberts’ 2005 study recommended a close
affiliation with professional research
Miner, Miner, and Griffith noted that
administration organizations such as
among the worst practices in research
NCURA and SRA. The RACC has reached
administration is the “lack of expedient and
out to professional research administration
regular communication among faculty,
organizations to promote CRA certification
between faculty and administrators, and
among the membership ranks. As the
among administrators” (Miner, Miner, &
RACC begins its 20th year of operation, the
Griffith, 2003, p. 17). Let us not see the value
time to market the CRA certification to
of the CRA designation fall prey to a lack of
clientele being served is a logical next step.
discourse. The global academic community
The research faculty are not the only
should view the letter cluster of “CRA” and
audience in need of enlightenment
immediately recognize the professional
regarding the meaning of CRA certification.
achievement and acknowledge the subject
Sponsoring agencies should also be aware
matter expertise of that individual.
of value-added by CRA-certified persons
handling the processing and compliance
monitoring of research awards.
8
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
LITERATURE CITED
Lee, C. (1998). Presumed competent. Training. 35(5).
Michaelidou, N., & Dibb, S. (2006). Using email questionnaires for research; Good practice in
tackling non-response. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and analysis for Marketing, 14(4),
289–297. Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pdqweb?did=1177957901&sid=3&F
mt=3&clientid=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Miner, L. E., Miner, J. T., & Griffith, J. (2003). Best-and-worst practices in research
administration. Research Management Review, 13(1), 11–20. Retrieved from
http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v13n1.pdf
Research Administration Certification Council (RAAC). (2012). What is certification?
http://www.cra-cert.org/whatiscertification.html
Roberts, T. J. (2005). Perceptions of research administrators on the value of certification.
Retrieved from ProQuest
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/305366503?accountid=35
812
Shambrook, J. & Brawman-Mintzer, O. (2007). Results from the 2007RASPerS. Research
Management Review, 15(2), 41‒52. Retrieved from
http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v15n2.pdf
Shambrook, J., & Roberts, T. J. (2011). 2010 profile of a research administrator. Research
Management Review, 18(1), 19‒30.
Shambrook, J., Roberts, T. J., & Triscari, R. (2011). Research administrator salary: Association
with education experience, credentials and gender. Journal of Research Administration,
42(2), 87‒95.
9
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
Getting from Procedures and Approach
to Innovation in Grantsmanship
Nancy B. Bell
Principal, Research Image
ABSTRACT
Call it innovation, creativity, imagination, cutting edge, paradigm shift, or any other term for
new information, an assessment of innovation may now impact the final decision on awarding
grants to investigators. What exactly is innovation and how does the reviewer perceive
innovation in the research approach? Procedures, the approach, and innovation all have
nuances in the grant application. This paper includes examples of all three grant application
components in laymen’s and scientific terms to demonstrate and investigate further their use in
the grant application.
thorough documentation and
INTRODUCTION
understanding of the procedures to be used,
The potential paths leading from
not relating how those incomplete
technical procedures through the Scientific
procedures affect the scientific integrity of
Approach to Innovation in a project can
the proposal, and not understanding how
spell success for a grant application or be a
the incomplete scientific approach affects
complete disaster. New investigators
the declaration of innovation within the
sometimes have difficulty choosing the
proposed project. Instead, the view is
correct paths, particularly if they are in a
often—“Well, it’s not going to get funded
hurry to get that first grant application out
anyway, so I’ll just send it in and see what
the door for reviewers’ comments.
the reviewers tell me should be done”.
Unfortunately, too many new investigators
Reviewers are weary of directing the
choose to “short-circuit” the grant
scientific research agenda of other
application process by not demonstrating a
investigators through a comments section.
10
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
Procedures include the conduct of an
Unfortunately, too many new
investigators choose to “short
circuit” the grant application
process by not demonstrating a
thorough documentation and
understanding of the procedures to
be used, not relating how those
incomplete procedures affect the
scientific integrity of the proposal,
and not understanding how the
incomplete scientific approach
affects the declaration of innovation
within the proposed project.
action or process in a mode that collects
information. These are the processes that
one follows religiously to bake the cake that
always gets kudos at the community center
buffet or that the investigator uses to get
consistent results from a scientific
experiment. Without procedures to follow,
the operator of your community’s water
system might deliver clear, colorless water
on one day, water that tastes good on
another, and water that is safe to drink on
the third day. What one wants that operator
to do is to deliver water that is consistently
colorless, clear, tasteless, and odorless, and
Hence, there is a movement to
is safe to drink all at one time, every day
eliminate grant applications that do not
without fail—that is, consistent results. The
follow protocol or instructions of the agency
pathway to the correct procedure for the
prior to review AND to eliminate (with few
water utility is an amalgamation of
comments) those applications for which
mathematical calculations, experience, trial
little or no interest can be garnered. Usually,
and error, and structured experimentation
the scientific approach to the project is
to determine the best way to get the desired
significantly flawed. Why are procedures,
results. In that water varies by source
approach, and innovation important in the
(ground or surface) and the number and
application? Consider the instructions and
amounts of suspended solids, dissolved
review criteria for a number of federal
solids, and electrolytic qualities vary, this
agencies. To provide some insight into the
can be a daunting task. Yet, the water
problems and some suggestions on how to
system is not approved until all procedures
correct these problems, definitions and
remove the impurities that affect safety and
dialogue on each of these components
most other aspects of palatable drinkability.
follow.
Over time, procedures may have to be or
can be modified to fit a particular
situation—too much rain with muddy
PROCEDURES
surface water, drought, high mineral levels
11
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
in wells going dry, etc. On the same note,
methodologies are always being transferred
the electric utility company is charged with
across organisms of different types.
delivering current to your home that is safe,
Consider the advent of gel electrophoresis
reliable, and at the appropriate power level
to determine variability among organisms
so that it does not damage your appliances,
of different populations of the same species.
clocks, and technology instrumentation.
The original gel and enzyme-resolution
Changing a cake recipe to add a new twist
“recipes” and technical procedures were
or zing is fine for the community buffet
highly coveted and investigators went so far
attendees. Changing the procedure during
as to purchase reprints of dissertations that
the standardized data collection process
contained gel resolution recipes and to
because the data are not providing the
gather as many recipes from other groups
expected results can be disastrous and
as possible. The recipes for animal testing
expensive. Reviewers are very astute at
are more prolific and easier to transfer
discerning procedural flaws that will yield
among species. The recipes for plants are
incomplete results or no new results, and/or
highly species-specific. Successful
make the stated scientific approach invalid.
resolution of enzyme banding was iffy even
Good science requires good data sets.
when working with individuals from
related species as plants release chemical
Reviewers are very astute at
discerning procedural flaws that
will yield incomplete results or no
new results, and/or make the stated
scientific approach invalid. Good
science requires good data sets.
garbage contained within the trash bags of
the leaves. When one prepares the plant
extract for electrophoresis, the entire leaf is
ground up, releasing the chemical garbage
from its internal containers. This leads to
faster degradation of the leaf enzymes, so
special precautions must be taken to
prevent degradation. To accommodate the
Some procedural errors occur because
variables, recipes for the gels used for
there is an assumption that Dr. X’s
electrophoresis of plants have to be
procedure for purifying enzyme “A”, for
modified, the enzyme-resolution recipes
example, transfers to isolating enzyme “A”
have to be more concentrated, and the
in a different organism. In that there are
procedure for electrical current passing
similarities, there will be differences. An
through the gels may have to be modified.
inadequate testing of the procedure with
To obtain the resolution and consistency
the new organism may lead to difficulties in
required for comprehensive data collection,
resolution of the data. Procedural
it took one investigator more than a year to
12
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
develop a protocol for a specific species of
mathematics after testing the new technique
plant before one piece of data was collected.
on children in grades 4-6. In political
Good science takes time and effort.
science, one change in party leadership
during one election does not constitute a
Good science takes time and
effort.
trend change. A one-day jump in the stock
market indices does not indicate a bull
market. Good science is applicable across
The best advice for making sure that
many fields.
your procedures and experimental design
are sound is to collect “pretend” data. Once
Good science is applicable across
many fields.
the “pretend” data are recorded on an
appropriate table, can one analyze the data
using standard and/or ANOVA statistical
SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
tests? Once the analysis is done, have you
The approach is the method used or
gathered/compiled new information? If the
answer is, “No”, then it is back to the design
steps taken in setting about a task or a
board to modify the techniques. If one has
problem. First, the approach should be
not acquired enough data to answer this
identified as the problem to be solved, as
question, then the weakness may lie in the
the critical need to be addressed, or as the
types of data to be collected and/or the
gap in information to be filled. If it is a true
number of trials to achieve significant
open-ended scientific investigation, a
results. If the investigator is to compare the
hypothesis(es) should be stated. The
results of several sets of pretend data that
statement of the specific aims or objectives
represent several different approaches AND
to be accomplished is designed to prove or
the results do not make sense or have
disprove the hypotheses. The broad base of
gaping holes in the analyses, then the
the aim or objective further delineates the
procedures and tests of those procedures
tests that are to be done to validate the
are flawed. Good science is accurate.
hypothesis. Usually the hypothesis is
directional in that it provides an educated
guess as to the expected results. The
Good science is accurate.
educated guess is derived from the
preliminary studies or data that were
The same consistency applies to other
collected prior to writing the grant
disciplines, such as education. One would
application. Second, the tests to be done to
not expect to introduce a new instructional
support the aims should have correct and
technique designed for third-grade
13
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
accurate procedures. There should be no
fees, gate sales, and sponsors. Until the
“Aha, and then the miracle occurs!” gaps in
reviewer can track every required aspect of
the procedures left to the reviewer’s
the grant application to the discipline
imagination. All reviewers work differently
expectations, gaps in information will cause
in reviewing an application although some
applications to be unfunded.
aspects of evaluation are similar. One such
Good science is objective.
example is the reading of the hypothesis
and one specific aim/objective. Each aim or
While the approach is formulated to
objective is then followed individually
through the significance description for the
address the stated hypothesis and aims, just
project and the approach with special
addressing these is not sufficient. There
attention paid to the procedural overview,
must be an end point at which data
selection criteria for inclusion and collection
collected are analyzed and interpreted. One
of data points generated during the
cannot just work as hard and fast as
procedures, how that information will be
possible to gather as much information as
combined with information from the other
possible during the grant award for
aims/objectives, the statistical tests to
inclusion in a final report. Analysis is
determine significance and what new
paramount to good science.
information will come from this combined
Analysis is paramount to good
science.
effort. Good science is objective.
Although the testing for scientific
investigation is quite rigorous, that rigidity
INNOVATION
transfers to other disciplines with peer-
To innovate is to introduce new things
review systems. For educational-oriented
grant applications, the objective must be
or methods that are entirely new or that
fleshed out with not only the anticipated
make changes in something already
results, but also the evaluation criteria, an
established. Call it innovation, creativity,
assignment of who is doing the work, the
imagination, cutting edge, paradigm shift,
evaluation assessment type, and to whom
or any other term for new information or
the intervention is to be applied. Those
new use of information, an assessment of
applications in the humanities for
innovation may now impact the final
performance-based project—concerts, plays,
decision on awarding grants to
etc.—are subject to strict budgetary
investigators. In that it is a new review
evaluations based on realistic anticipated
criteria upon which reviewers are expected
revenues from endowments, membership
14
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
to make comments, there has been some
business” in this usage did not include the
confusion as to what qualifies as
neighborhood pharmacy, the local beauty
innovation. Obviously, if the grant writer
shop, or the locally owned, franchised fast-
does not include information addressing
food restaurant. Instead, the SBIR funded
innovation in the proposal, no score can be
businesses with fewer than 100 employees
assigned to that section, rendering the
that were engaged in the development of
application unfunded. Innovation is at the
new products or ideas for
“apex” of the scientific pyramid, supported
commercialization that were within the
by significance, hypotheses and aims,
interests of the federal government. The
procedure and approach design, and
parameters were to increase employment,
evaluation.
meet federal needs, provide access for all
groups, and increase commercialization of
Call it innovation, creativity,
imagination, cutting edge,
paradigm shift, or any other term
for new information or new use of
information, an assessment of
innovation may now impact the
final decision on awarding grants
to investigators.
innovation stemming from federal projects.
Innovation gradually crept into the review
criteria as reviewers grappled with the
quality and value-added of the research, the
applicability of the research to the
profession, and the limited funding for
research. Agencies developed strategic
plans with priorities with stated expected
outcomes. All of these facets contributed to
How did innovation get into the review
the expectation that research should have
criteria? In the early 1980s, small business
some type of application even if it is
entrepreneurs lobbied Congress for a set-
something that would occur in the future.
aside from the larger federal funding
Thus, investigators who are forward-
agencies to encourage the development of
thinking, can see the future, and can figure
new ideas and products. The word
out the pathway to get to the future are
“innovation” became embedded in the
those who will be funded.
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
The late Steve Jobs of Apple, Inc. was
awards of those federal agencies. SBIR
lauded as a great innovator. Perhaps the
innovative research was not the basic
best known innovation was the introduction
research conducted typically in academia at
of the iPad ™. The iPad used no new
that time, it was not clinical research to test
technology—touch screens have been in
drugs, and it was not what we now call
existence since the mid-1980s, it is basically
translational research. The term “small
a computer, and the small size was not new.
15
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
Touch screens have been used in malls to
independently of the others. Prior work had
identify the locations of certain types of
been done on multiple generations and
businesses. A popular hamburger
multiple traits with no meaningful data. By
enterprise has used touch screens for
combining his expertise in gardening with
entering orders into the system for years.
schooling in physics and mathematics,
Why? Using unskilled personnel meant that
Mendel’s research led to the laws of
often mistakes were made in calculating tax,
segregation and independent assortment.
adding up totals, and making correct
His choice of pea plants and traits may have
change. All of these mistakes cut into the
been a lucky choice. The mathematical
profit margin and it was less expensive to
analyses led to the postulation of pairs of
incorporate the technology. Now, each
“factors” that we today know as genes or
component of an order has its own touch
alleles. Any other species may have had
screen button that automatically records the
genes grouped on one chromosome where
price of the orders, adds taxes, deducts
segregation and independent assortment
special discounts, totals the bill, and
would not have been evident. Nevertheless,
calculates the change from cash payments.
Mendel’s separation of the whole into
Some computers were not much more than
distinct parts was innovative at the time.
palm-sized more than ten years ago. The
We consider Leonardo da Vinci to be
limiting factor was the size of the
innovative in that he designed the concept
processing components. To overcome this,
of a rotary blade mechanism that is
removable hard drives were inserted into or
heralded as the first helicopter design. His
removed from the mini-computer as
designs led us to believe that he had some
needed. Over time, processing components
conceptual knowledge of lift, torque, etc.
have become smaller and more powerful so
Leonardo put all these ideas together even
that size is no longer an issue. So, if all the
though he didn’t have the funding or all the
technology existed and it still is a computer,
mechanisms in place to construct a
what made the iPad innovative? The
helicopter.
collection of these technologies into a new
Other innovations create a paradigm
format with portability and new
shift in the way a specific scientific
applications (the new “apps” so highly
procedure is done and may forever change
regarded) made the iPad innovative.
the standards. For years, eye disease
Unlike Steve Jobs who integrated a
research has been done on standardized
number of components into a whole,
strains of laboratory mice. The ultimate test
Gregor Mendel was innovative in that he
of the disease manifestations or treatment
elected to study each plant trait
was to sacrifice the mouse and perform
16
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
histology studies on the eye. Each mouse
factor to the creative effort was the size of
was a one-time effort as the study was
the prints that could be made from the
neither repeatable on that mouse nor could
available printing press. Others had tried to
the eye be tested for irregularities prior to
overcome this shortcoming with a variety of
introduction of a disease vector or a
less than successful ways to hide the fact
treatment. The only recognized, valid
that the print was glued to the background.
results were the hundreds of histological
This artist took a different approach and
slides obtained from each mouse eye. With
decided to make the attachment of the print
the advent of light science technology, a
to the background obvious. This was done
modification of recognized, established
by stapling the print to the background
light procedures can be used to scan the
with standard staples. The technique
mouse eye before the introduction of a
involved very consistent spacing of the
disease vector. What has been discovered is
staples into the board. It was quite attractive
that many individuals of the “pure” strains
and for many years was one of the signature
of laboratory mice appear to have lesions in
aspects of her print works. Again,
the eye prior to receiving treatment. The
everything existed prior to the new
pre-screening does not damage the eye but
assembly of materials to tell a different
allows the investigator to discard the mouse
story. Innovation may be born of necessity.
from the experiment or possibly record the
Artists continually seek new media and
lesions. Then a comparison of the end
ways to utilize that media. Digital
results with the known lesions permits
photography and computer graphics have
exclusion of the known lesions from the
opened a whole new door for creativity and
study. The ultimate “gold standard” for eye
innovation.
research is histology; both histological and
Where does innovation lead us?
photonic results can be compared side by
Innovation is not necessarily going to lead
side until some degree of reliability can be
to patents and profits. Some innovations
established. Should prior screening and
become imbedded in scientific procedures
later analysis by photonic means become
and improve the accuracy with which data
accepted, that would be a paradigm shift.
are collected without becoming an
Creativity and innovation may be more
invention. The core of innovation may lie in
difficult to assess in the arts. One man’s
how humans use a “discovery” to enhance
creativity is another’s “Ugh!” However, one
well-being and suppress negative effects.
example comes to mind. A print/composite
The prehistoric discoveries of fire and the
artist was interested in making large murals
wheel come to mind. Wildfires spawned
that included original prints. A limiting
during lightning strikes, fueled with
17
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
accumulated biomass, and spread by high
seems to be rising with the use of the term
winds, are dangerous—they rout humans
“innovation.”
and animals from their habitat, direct
Some innovations arise from “figments”
lightning strikes can be fatal, and relocation
of one’s imagination. That figment is such a
to a better food source might be necessary.
small idea that it may not seem feasible. The
Over time, man learned to use the fire to
idea may race through the mind, only to be
enhance the quality of life—heat for
stored in a compartment. However, the idea
personal warmth and cooking, light to see
may continue to be revisited and may
danger and to keep danger away. Man also
actually “gel” at a later date. Species
learned to control the fire to his
“splitters”, who are always trying to
advantage—controlling fuel limits fire size,
identify new species, become experts in
applying water to extinguish fire,
discerning minute differences among
smothering a fire with animal skins or
individuals. The brain is a multivariate
woven mats, etc.
computer and identification of the variables
will often confirm what the brain imagines
The core of innovation may lie in
how humans use a “discovery” to
enhance well-being and suppress
negative effects.
is correct. What will be the innovations of
the future? The media has touched on the
issues—global warming and mediating the
effects of global warming; storage of
naturally occurring energy from the sun,
Many naive investigators identify any
wind, water, and lightning; inequality in the
new information to be gleaned from a
distribution of the world’s resources and
proposed study as innovative without ever
the effects of overpopulation on these
explaining the impact of the innovation. For
resources; and unlocking brain access for all
years the NIH has asked that investigators
learners (potential)—to name a few.
identify the health-related issues to be
Innovation is not change for the sake of
affected by a research project. Reviewers
change. Innovation sheds new light on
bemoaned many of the inane responses to
systems operation; provides better
this—leads to more discovery, good for my
mechanistic behavior studies; engages
career, creates articles for publication, will
students in a better learning experience;
get me tenure, etc. All that the reviewer
provides new ways to diagnose, prevent, or
wanted was some evidence that the
treat an illness; or develops offensive or
investigator could make a translational leap
defensive activities to protect people.
from bench chemistry to bedside treatment,
Innovation can be high risk, and may
prevention or diagnostics. The same issue
18
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
exhibit high vs. low importance, relevance,
preliminary information or data that will
and significance.
tell the reviewer the expected results. Do a
ADDRESSING THE REVIEWER
“pretend” data analysis on that information
to see if you can obtain the results that you
How does one convince a reviewer that
desire to prove your hypothesis. Prepare
a change of procedures and approaches can
your application in such a manner that the
and does lead to innovation? First, the
reviewer can address one aim or objective at
reviewer must concede that the first major
a time and follow each through the entirety
funding awarded to a novice investigator is
of the application. Do the statistics and
not going to contribute earth-shattering
analysis. This, of course, takes more time in
innovation/paradigm shifts/inventions that
the planning process, but the results will
change the world within that discipline.
pay off in the long run. Be sure to tell the
Instead, the innovative idea has moved past
reviewer why your proposed work is
the figment era and into some more
innovative.
concrete arena. “Creating” a project is not
There may be “levels” of recognized
just going to the other side of the mountain
sophistication in innovation that affect the
to see what’s there but imagining, “What
reviewer’s evaluation of innovation in a
could be there? How can you identify it?
project. These might include (in a pseudo-
How can it be used?”
ascending order of importance or
significance):
“Creating” a project is not just
going to the other side of the
mountain to see what’s there but
imagining, “What could be there?
How can you identify it? How can
it be used?”
•
Figment—Speculative ideas with no
data support
•
Procedures—Change in a process
that reveals better data resolution or
more data
• Approach—Assemble parts to make
a new whole OR dissembling the
So what is the new investigator to do
whole into separate components
when resubmitting a grant application to
• Innovation—Paradigm shifts that
address previous shortfalls or trying to
really impress that reviewer with the first
diminish or erase significance of all
application? First, make sure that all your
previous innovations in the field;
procedures are totally thought out and that
studies that address discipline tenets
as much information as needed is gleaned
that have been postulated but poorly
from each experiment. Develop appropriate
proven.
19
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
As with all innovation, there must be
innovation is based on a solid scientific
some aspect that possibly changes how or
background.
why we conduct business, science, teaching,
performances, etc., in the future. That
20
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
Communicating with Investigators about
Financial Compensation for
Statistical Collaboration
Richard F. Ittenbach
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and
College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati
Francis W. DeAngelis
The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute,
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Mekibib Altaye
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and
College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati
ABSTRACT
Communicating with investigators about financial compensation in the area of statistical
collaboration represents an important but often underemphasized component of biomedical
research. The more complex the area, the greater the need for sound and effective
communication strategies. Ittenbach and DeAngelis (2012) recently compared two
compensation-based models for statistical collaboration—a fee-for-service model and a percent
effort model—recommending a hybrid of the two for use in academic medical centers. The
purpose of the current paper is to extend their work by providing a rationale and framework for
communication among scientific teams. The discussion is organized around three pivotal areas:
understanding the client’s needs and constraints, establishing effective patterns of
communication, and demonstrating knowledge in financial as well as analytical matters.
Recommendations for improving the collaborative, communication-based processes are offered.
21
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
INTRODUCTION
each be evaluated within the context of
Within any field of study, effective
existing institutional policies and practices.
collaboration requires more than simple
Escalating costs and diminishing resources
technical knowledge—it also requires the
can strain even the most productive and
ability to communicate well with others.
efficient departments. Providing technical
Communication is more than just sharing
support to study teams is not simply about
information with others ‘on our own terms’;
the depth and quality of the technical
it requires the ability to send, receive, and
information, but the depth and quality of all
adapt information to the needs of the client,
the information shared—including
at the time the information is needed, and in
information regarding financial
a manner that facilitates the goals of the
compensation.
study. The more complex the science, the
All collaborative relationships happen
greater the need for honest and open
within a context—that is, a larger system.
communication among team members. Not
As Derr (2000) pointed out, communication
surprisingly, discussions about
is what links the consultant’s knowledge
compensation can add yet another layer of
with the client’s needs—and it is the
complexity by translating the needs of the
mechanism through which technical help is
investigative team into financial realities.
provided to the clinical scientist. While the
principles raised by Derr are couched
. . . effective collaboration
requires more than simple
technical knowledge; it also
requires the ability to
communicate well with others.
within a statistical context, they are directly
applicable to all technical specialties, from
biostatistics to bioinformatics to sponsored
programs and regulatory affairs.
While the principles raised by
Derr are couched within a
statistical context, they are directly
applicable to all technical
specialties, from biostatistics to
bioinformatics to sponsored
programs and regulatory affairs.
Ittenbach and DeAngelis (2012) recently
compared two compensation-based models
for statistical collaboration—a fee-forservice (FFS) model and a percent effort
(PE) model—recommending a hybrid of the
two when working with investigators in
academic medical centers. Although the
models presented have their own
The purpose of the current paper is to
advantages and disadvantages, they must
build upon the earlier work of Ittenbach
22
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
and DeAngelis (2012) with respect to
. . . the primary objective of every
meeting should be to make certain
that the goals of the study and the
needs of the client are being
addressed as completely as
possible, given the financial and
practical limitations of the
environment.
compensation models for statistical
collaboration, by providing a rationale and
framework for communicating with
investigators about financial compensation.
Recommendations are then offered for
improving this collaborative process.
UNDERSTANDING CLIENT’S NEEDS
AND CONSTRAINTS
For example, some teams are quite
First and foremost, biomedical research
proficient at designing studies, conducting
is about advancing evidence-based
their own analyses, and writing the results
medicine. If designed well, the
up for peer review, while others are not.
compensation model should actually
The former may only need incidental or
facilitate the collaborative process and it
infrequent consultation (or mentoring)
should allow for the provision of services
while the latter may need extensive,
not otherwise available. Given that it truly
sustained analytical support. Consequently,
is about the science, the primary objective of
the former may be better served by an
every meeting should be to make certain
hourly fee-for-service approach to invoicing
that the goals of the study and the needs of
while the latter may be better served by a
the client are being addressed as completely
more sustained, percent-effort model. In
as possible, given the financial and practical
addition, some investigators may need the
limitations of the environment. To quote a
guidance of a Ph.D.-level statistician while
widely recognized author, “Seek first to
others may benefit from the help of a well-
understand, then to be understood” (Covey,
trained master’s- or bachelor’s-level
1989, p. 235). Once the client’s needs and the
statistician. Whatever the case, investigators
scientific problems on which those needs
and statisticians alike must work within the
are based are explained and fully
constraints of the system in which they
understood, the statistician can devise and
work. While some statistical support units
communicate a support plan, complete with
will have many different levels of expertise
a detailed budget.
available to help researchers, others will
not. In addition, many investigators will
have budgets and support systems that can
flex in response to needs as they arise;
others, however, will need to make the
23
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
analytical support fit the budgetary
hospital itself. Those that cannot stay cost-
constraints. Hence, the clarity of the
neutral may cease to exist, resulting in little
problem and the unique needs of the
to no statistical support available for
investigative team have clear, budgetary
investigators, adversely impacting the
implications, which in turn may have
science in a fairly direct way. Giving the
implications for the science.
explanation and rationale for support as
early as possible in the collaborative
. . .the clarity of the problem and
the unique needs of the
investigative team have clear,
budgetary implications, which in
turn may have implications for the
science.
working relationship, preferably during the
first meeting, will do much to help alleviate
any misunderstandings or hard feels
associated with payment for services.
Not all investigators understand
that some statistical support units
are required to generate their own
funding and be cost-neutral to stay
in business, . . . .
Whereas investigators justifiably care
more about the science than the charge-back
mechanisms, statisticians and other support
personnel may need to share with the client
the advantages and disadvantages of each
ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE
PATTERNS OF COMMUNICATION
approach (see Ittenbach & DeAngelis, 2012).
It has been our experience that a brief
Investigators understand that research
explanation of why a charge-back
is a complicated process with many
mechanism is necessary goes a long way
interconnecting parts. Investigators also
toward strengthening the collaborative
understand that delays and disruptions are
relationship. For example, many
part of the scientific process. However,
investigators may not actually know that
those disruptions should not stand in the
some services like statistical or data
way of a healthy and productive working
management support may not be covered
relationship. Listed below are three
by institutional mechanisms and must be
components that help to establish effective
purchased through other means. Not all
patterns of communication.
investigators understand that some
Building Trust through Commitment.
statistical support units are required to
Few things are more important to an
generate their own funding and be cost-
investigator than keeping one’s word.
neutral to stay in business, similar in many
Whether one is discussing specifics of a
ways to a clinical department within the
24
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
scientific method or the details of an
statistician’s work, so investigators have
invoice, it generally always comes down to
little reason to withhold information or
trust, and the trustworthiness of one
resources. Investigators may not always
another. If a statistician or other technical
have the information or the resources
service provider can be trusted to hold true
needed, but they absolutely cannot provide
to simple things like arriving for meetings
them if they do not know that particular
on time, returning phone calls/emails in a
and perhaps even very specialized
timely manner, and having the right
resources are needed by the analytical
documentation when needed, chances are
support team. The more open the
very good that the statistician can be trusted
communication, the more important it is to
with larger issues such as hourly reporting
identify and set the boundaries needed to
and invoicing. Investigators want to trust
assure that jobs get done (Morganstein,
that their data and their projects are being
2012).
cared for wisely and that the time devoted
Package the Information. Technical
to their projects is productive. Given the
information, like the expectations just
rush to meet deadlines, many investigators
mentioned, must also be conveyed in a
often forget how much they ask of their
professional and straightforward manner.
support staff. A full and open accounting of
The information must be written,
effort spent along with relevant
organized, and sequenced in a way that fits
products/deliverables (e.g., printouts) may
with the investigator’s expectations and
be all that is necessary to allay one’s
level of understanding. When sharing a 30-
concerns.
page printout with a study team, even
Open Communication. Just as clients
simple things like outlines, advance
have expectations, so, too, do the
organizers, and introductory statements can
statisticians. Whether it is time, equipment,
do wonders for making the information
support staff, or just plain data, statistical
accessible to the team—and in building
support is often conditional upon many
confidence that the statistician has the
factors. These factors must be made known
teams’ best interests at heart. Morganstein
at the time decisions are made about
(2012) suggested providing study teams
moving forward with statistical support. If a
with formal “agendas, flowcharts,
statistician does not have the time, the right
checklists, and minutes from meetings” to
software, or the skills needed for a
help keep the lines of communication open
particular analysis, then that should be
with all team members. Time spent
made known right away. The success of an
organizing and updating correspondence
investigator’s project often hinges on the
helps anticipate questions from the team
25
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
and assists with assimilation of complex
some departments only one funding model
material throughout all phases of the study.
may actually be available to faculty and
DEMONSTRATE KNOWLEDGE IN
FINANCIAL AS WELL AS ANALYTICAL
MATTERS
staff (e.g., PE or FFS, exclusively), there are
also departments where alternative models
are either readily available or entirely
permissible. For example, if there is a
In a climate that values a quid pro quo
threshold below which percent-effort is not
philosophy, investigators often do not
permissible (e.g., 10%), then departmental
understand being charged for what they
staff members should be able to report the
regard as collegial services. Yet, clinical
policy for what it is. Policies do not have to
departments are not expected to provide
be etched in stone; however, when policies
their services without sound cost
are based on solid reasoning,
accounting procedures, so why should it be
communication is enhanced and
any different for scientific support units?
frustrations minimized. Many institutions
Having a trusted statistician or business
have support systems in place to defray
manager articulate the model a department
costs for one team (e.g., departmental
uses for financial compensation can go a
consulting centers, Center for Clinical and
long way toward gaining acceptance among
Translational Science), while subsidizing
colleagues. If investigators are able to
the support of another (e.g., biostatistics,
recognize the same standards of veracity
bioinformatics). Avenues of support are
and rigor in the compensation process as in
certainly important for investigators to
their statistical work, they are likely to be
know about, and to have available to them,
appreciative and consider their scientific
but, just as importantly, investigators
work to be in good hands. While business
should also know that the work is not
managers are a key component of any study
simply ‘free,’ but rather subsidized by
team, the statistician cannot always defer
another department or sponsor to improve
compensation-related questions to the
the scientific work of the institution.
business manager without loss of
Ittenbach and DeAngelis (2012) outlined a
credibility. With respect to financial
series of steps that can be used to establish
arrangements, specifically, statisticians
rate structures for collaboration using tiered
should be able to understand and convey
levels of support within an academic
the following to investigators.
medical center.
Options for Financing Statistical
Support. It matters little whether one is a
fan of a particular model or not. Whereas in
26
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
estimates, investigators appreciate it
Policies do not have to be etched
in stone; however, when policies
are based on solid reasoning,
communication is enhanced and
frustrations minimized.
tremendously. Having immediate access to
an experienced business manager is critical
to the statistical consulting relationship but
does not free the statistician from knowing
many of the compensation-related
Procedures for Reporting, Verifying,
fundamentals—especially those that affect
and Billing. Most people assume that they
the science! Being able to drill down and
get what they pay for—and want to believe
cost out components of a large project over
that they are getting a fair exchange for
time offers investigators a sense of comfort
their dollar (Derr, 2000). As such, if
and confidence that their needs are being
investigators see that the hours spent on a
fully addressed. For example, having
project are reasonable, and if there is a value
modifiable Statistical Analysis Plans, Data
added to the project work by the team
Management Plans, and other templates
statistician, then the investigator will be free
available for use to help with the planning
to concentrate on the science. Most
and communication process can be very
investigators do not want to take advantage
helpful with respect to completely
of their statistician’s time, so the process can
characterizing the work that will be needed
protect both sides of the working
to develop sound budget estimates. Not
relationship. The same principle applies to
surprisingly, estimates for effort spent and
the cost-accounting software used to track
the budgets that contain them should be
and invoice for effort spent. Investigators
very much a collaborative effort among the
will want assurances that invoices and/or
investigator, the statistician, and the
electronic draws on their accounts are
business managers, all of whom are
accurate and verifiable (even auditable
indispensable components of the team,
where necessary), and that the cost
working together to improve the science
accounting software is as sophisticated and
and the medical care that results!
reliable as the software used in their own
CONCLUSION
scientific work.
Communicating with investigators
Estimates of New Projects. Few things
can inspire confidence in a statistician more
about compensation-related policies and
than an accurate and well-defined project
practices when discussing statistical
estimate. Whether a statistician knows how
collaboration is an important but often
to generate sound project estimates or can
underemphasized component of statistical
refer to someone who can provide those
consultation. Within any field of study,
27
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
effective collaboration requires more than
work or prior to submission of an
simple technical knowledge; it also requires
application for sponsored funding.
 Discussions about financial
the ability to communicate well with others.
The more complex the material, the more
compensation must be couched
important the need for sound and effective
within the context of a broader
communication strategies for all concerned.
communication strategy, one built
Listed below are several recommendations
on trust, open and honest
for statisticians and other technical support
communication among study team
staff who routinely find themselves
members, and well-crafted
communicating with others about financial
deliverables tailored to the level and
compensation.
needs of the investigative team.
 The compensation model can
Communicating with investigators
about compensation-related
policies and practices when
discussing statistical collaboration
is an important but often
underemphasized component of
statistical consultation.
facilitate or hinder the success of the
science and productivity of an
investigative team.
Statisticians and other technical support
staff should be cognizant of the financial
compensation model(s) used by their
department and the options available to
investigators. Support staff should be able
 Conversations regarding scope of
to articulate the strengths and weaknesses
work and financial compensation
of various charge-back systems and how
should occur prior to the start of any
they will affect a given study.
AUTHOR’S NOTE
This project was supported by an Institutional Clinical and Translational Science Award,
NIH/NCATS Grant No. 8UL1TR000077-04. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the
authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
LITERATURE CITED
Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal change.
New York: Author.
28
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
Derr, J. D. (2000). Statistical consulting: A guide to effective communication. Pacific Grove, CA:
Duxbury Thompson Learning.
Ittenbach, R. F., & DeAngelis, F. W. (2012). Percent effort vs. fee-for-service: A comparison of
models for statistical collaboration. Research Management Review, 19(1), 1–18.
Morganstein, D. (2012). Consulting best practices. AMSTAT News, (423), 26–27.
29
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
Grant Proposal Development à la
FLC (Faculty Learning Community) Mode
Pollyanne S. Frantz
Appalachian State University
ABSTRACT
Although the Faculty Learning Community is not a new structure or initiative in the higher
education arena, adapting this model for faculty development focused on grant proposal
writing is relatively new. This article describes how the concept developed by Milt Cox of
Miami University has been successfully modified and implemented twice on the Appalachian
State University campus in Boone, NC, with planning underway for a third FLC during the next
academic year. Given the short history of this nascent initiative, faculty participants were
allowed to select either internal or external funding opportunities for proposal development,
since initiative goals included cultivating interest in the process of securing funding and
developing faculty members’ grantsmanship skills.
enhancing teaching and learning and with
INTRODUCTION
frequent seminars and activities that
The Faculty Learning Community
provide learning, development,
(FLC for short) concept calls for a small
transdisciplinarity, the scholarship of
group of faculty to convene around a
teaching and learning, and community
shared responsibility. The more traditional
building” (Miami University, 2012). The
version of a FLC is “…a group of trans-
FLC for Grant Proposal Writing (FLC:
disciplinary faculty, graduate students and
GPW) at Appalachian State University uses
professional staff group of size 6-15 or more
a modified structure to achieve the desired
… engaging in an active, collaborative,
outcome of creating competitive proposals
yearlong program with a curriculum about
30
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
for internal or external funding
initiative, has two full-time employees and
opportunities. Modifications include
one graduate assistant. GRS also is
keeping the FLC size relatively small (six
responsible for locating and disseminating
participants), compressing the FLC length
funding opportunities and related
to less than one semester, and focusing
information; conducting faculty
exclusively on proposal writing. This
professional development as it relates to
structure does incorporate standard FLC
grantsmanship; and, managing internal
“ground rules” to which participants agree
competitions for programs with limited
to adhere, like a commitment to active
submission restrictions.
participation; an agreement to operate by
FLC: GPW ORIGINS
consensus; and being respectful of others’
The first FLC: GPW was an outgrowth
work.
of a May 2010 weeklong professional
writing retreat for 50 faculty members
The FLC for Grant Proposal Writing
(FLC: GPW) at Appalachian State
University uses a modified structure
to creat[e] competitive proposals for
internal or external funding. . .
[modifications] include keeping the
FLC size relatively small (six
participants), compressing the FLC
length to less than one semester,
and focusing exclusively on
proposal writing.
hosted by the Hubbard Programs for
Faculty Excellence at Appalachian State
University. Throughout the week,
participants attended workshops that
focused on different writing styles; grant
proposal writing was one of the featured
workshops. Because of the amount of
interest expressed by the 23 participants in
the grant proposal writing workshop, the
first FLC: GPW invitation was offered
exclusively to these workshop attendees.
Appalachian State University, one of 16
The FLC: GPW launched during the fall
higher education institutions in the
2010 semester with three participants and
University of North Carolina system, carries
the facilitator (Frantz). The initial meeting
the Carnegie Classification of Master’s –
focused on achieving consensus about
Larger Programs designation, and has 871
ground rules for participation; it also
full-time faculty. Fall 2011 enrollment
included participants sharing information
figures reflected an undergraduate student
about their research and scholarly interests
population of 15,460 and a graduate student
with each other. The facilitator covered the
population of 1,884. Grants Resources &
mechanics of utilizing the institution’s
Services (GRS), which leads the FLC: GPW
AsULearn course management system,
31
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
 The planned meeting structure helped
which was used to create a course to
facilitate posting of program guidelines and
them more effectively manage their
participants’ narrative drafts. The
time, thus enabling them to meet
AsULearn site features a forum that
deadlines.
 The compressed meeting schedule (six
participants used to communicate with each
other outside of the face-to-face meetings.
meetings over a seven-week period) was
Participants also met face-to-face for six
“doable” because it was a finite time
90-minute sessions over a seven-week
span.
 Peer pressure was positive in that
period. The bulk of the time was spent
critiquing proposal narrative drafts and
participants felt an obligation to present
offering constructive criticism. Other topics
their work by established deadlines for
covered during these sessions included
others to critique and vice versa (the
discussions about unclear application
“gym buddy” effect).
instructions, like the distinction between
Participants liked the group meeting
different sections of the guidelines and how
format because it allowed them to talk
to best address the instructions given space
about sentence structures and word choices
limitations; discussions about constructing
in a face-to-face setting, which resulted in
accurate and complete budgets; and
more fruitful discussions. Through the
discussions about future funding
process of reviewing others’ writing and
opportunities and strategies for pursuing
having their work reviewed in return,
them. Participant proposal activity included
participants also gained a better
one proposal submitted for an internal
understanding about what readers look for
funding opportunity and a second proposal
when reviewing proposals. Participants
developed for the next internal funding
reported feeling increased confidence in
opportunity deadline. Although both
their own writing ability as well as the
proposals were declined during the first
ability to offer constructive criticism about
submission, one of the proposals was
others’ writing.
revised and awarded funding in a
subsequent review cycle.
Despite what appears to be a relatively
low output from the first FLC, the
participants identified several beneficial
aspects, including the following:
32
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
The group meeting format. . .
allowed them to talk about sentence
structures and word choices. . .and
in. . .reviewing others’ writing and
having their work reviewed in
return, [they] . . . gained a better
understanding of what readers look
for when reviewing proposals.
SECOND GENERATION FLC: GPW
Minor modifications were made for
the next FLC: GPW, like early registration to
facilitate sponsor and program
identification, and establishing deadlines
for uploading materials into the course
management system. Six faculty members
initially registered for FLC: GPW during the
fall 2011 semester but only four were able to
academic disciplines, including the social
fully participate in all six face-to-face
sciences, creative and performing arts, and
sessions. The blended format combining
computer science; this diversity among
online access through the course
areas of expertise allowed for rich
management system and the face-to-face
discussions during the face-to-face sessions.
meetings worked well for this group.
Additionally, the group represented both
Especially notable is that this group had an
qualitative and quantitative researchers.
easier time getting proposal drafts
Most of the participants were near the
uploaded into the AsULearn site far enough
beginning of their academic careers
in advance of the face-to-face meetings to
(untenured assistant professors), although a
allow sufficient time for review. Meeting
few held the rank of associate professor.
these internal deadlines allowed for more
Most possessed at least basic-level
productive discussions during group
grantsmanship skills, and all were pursuing
meetings. Several participants were
funding to support their research. See Table
preparing proposals for the same internal
1 for specific information on session format,
funding opportunity, so the review and
scheduling, and topics. Topics discussed
critique of their drafts benefitted both
and revisited throughout the six sessions
individual authors and the larger group
included developing budgets; human
since they all were working from one set of
subjects research (multiple aspects); and
guidelines during the sessions.
interpreting guidelines and assessing fit
Like the first group of FLC participants,
between idea and sponsor.
the second group represented multiple
33
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
Table 1
Session Format, Scheduling, and Topics, FLC: GPW
Date(s)
Activity
Content
Content Deadline
June 1 & 22
July 13
Invitation to participate
(publicity)
Aug. 1 (application to
participate)
August 1 through
September 9
Locating & evaluating
funding opportunities
September 29
Session #1
October 6
Session #2
October 20
Session #3
Publicity materials included FLC
content and structure, including
meeting dates and times, which
facilitated decision-making for
prospective participants
Grants Resources & Services staff
conducted funding opportunity
searches based on project topic
description and funding needs profile
forms completed by faculty
participants

Welcome and introductions

FLC overview: orientation and
ground rules

Faculty project descriptions
(discussion)

Analysis and discussion of
guidelines for four internal
funding opportunities

Group discussion of one
proposal draft
Group discussion of three proposal
drafts (approximately 25 minutes per
proposal)
November 3
Session #4
November 10
Session #5
November 17
Session #6

Group discussion of one
proposal draft

General discussion: proposal
development and submission
policies and procedures
Discussion: future proposal roadmaps
for each participant (three federal
sponsors and various programs for
each sponsor identified and evaluated,
timeline crafted —“game plan”
created)

Group discussion of one
proposal draft

Group discussion and analysis
of sponsor guidelines,
especially research project
description section

Celebration and conclusion
34
September 9
(funding opportunity
searches completed and
disseminated for
consideration)
N/A
October 3 (proposal drafts
uploaded to AsULearn site
for review prior to
meeting)
October 17 (proposal
drafts uploaded to
AsULearn site for review
prior to meeting)
October 31 (proposal
drafts uploaded to
AsULearn site for review
prior to meeting)
November 7 (proposal
drafts uploaded to
AsULearn site for review
prior to meeting)
November 14
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
In determining what worked better
Topics discussed and revisited
throughout the six sessions
included developing budgets;
human subjects research (multiple
aspects); and, interpreting
guidelines and assessing fit
between idea and sponsor.
during the second iteration, anecdotal
evidence suggests that participants in the
second group were more established in
their roles at the institution and therefore
more familiar with the process at
Appalachian State University for seeking
internal or external funding. Having
This second group was productive as
identified and reviewed the funding
well: three of the four participants
opportunities they wanted to pursue prior
submitted five applications to three
to the first face-to-face meeting increased
different internal funding opportunities
their receptivity to outside accountability
during the course of the FLC; all five
since they were working with defined
proposals were awarded funding. This
application deadlines. Later reflection on
support helped the three faculty members
the group’s productivity led the facilitator
collect pilot data in preparation for seeking
to surmise that the individual personalities
extramural funding. Two of the three
did play a role; quite simply, the
internally funded faculty members also
personalities clicked, which facilitated
have proposals pending with federal
positive and productive discussions about
agencies like the National Endowment for
the proposal drafts. Learning objectives
the Humanities and the National Institutes
achieved in this initiative include the ability
of Health. All four faculty members
to provide and receive constructive
expressed sentiments similar to the first
criticism related to grant proposal writing;
FLC participants about how the FLC
enhanced writing skills specifically related
structure facilitated better time
to grant proposals; and, expanded
management and honed their ability to
knowledge of the proposal writing process.
meet deadlines. Participants also noted that
CONCLUSION
the FLC: GPW improved their ability to
explain their research and scholarship to
After a relatively small amount of
people outside their disciplines. Both sets of
work establishing the FLC: GPW structure
participants liked using the AsULearn site:
and schedule, it is alive and well, with plans
they’re already familiar with it since they
for a third cohort to start during the fall
use it for their academic courses.
2013 semester. Faculty to be recruited for
the third FLC are those who plan to
35
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
resubmit previously declined proposals for
development professionals can facilitate
extramural funding. The author anticipates
their efforts to secure internal or external
that targeting this population will again
funding. As this initiative matures, it is
result in a variety of academic disciplines
anticipated that future participants will
and writing styles being represented as
move beyond focusing primarily on internal
well as a different starting point for
funding opportunities and instead
participants, since the faculty members will
concentrate their efforts on preparing
be revising previously written proposals
competitive proposals for extramural
using reviews from external readers as well
funding.
as current reviews from other FLC
participants.
Learning objectives . . . include the
ability to provide and receive
constructive criticism related to grant
proposal writing; enhanced writing
skills specifically related to grant
proposals; and expanded knowledge
of the proposal writing process.
The FLC: GPW has been a mutually
beneficial experience for both faculty
participants and Grants Resources &
Services (GRS) personnel at Appalachian
State; through the process of providing
individual faculty assistance, participants
gain an understanding of how research
LITERATURE CITED
Miami University of Ohio. (2012). Website for developing Faculty and Professional Learning
Communities (FLCs): Communities of practice in higher education. Retrieved May 3,
2012 from http://www.unit s.muohio.edu/flc/whatis.php
36
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
The Final Rule:
Implementing New Policies for
Financial Conflict of Interest
at the University of Central Florida
Andrea Adkins, Tammie McClellan, and John Miner
University of Central Florida
ABSTRACT
Academic institutions modified their financial conflict of interest policies (FCOI) in response to
the Public Health Service’s (PHS) 2011 revised regulations (42 CFR 50 Subpart F) on
Responsibility of Applicants for Promoting Objectivity in Research and Responsible Prospective
Contractors (45 CFR 94), which were to go into effect on August 24, 2012. Using the National
Institutes of Health checklist for the 2011 revised FCOI policy development as a guide, many
institutions began to prepare for compliance in 2011 following passage of the final rule
(National Institutes of Health, 2012). However, changes to conflict of interest policies and
procedures began at the University of Central Florida (UCF) in 2009, providing a smoother
implementation in 2012 of the revised federal regulations. UCF’s Office of Research and
Commercialization, University Compliance and Ethics Office, Office of Faculty Relations, and
Office of General Counsel joined in the effort to update the university’s policies and procedures
concerning financial conflict of interest and conflict of commitment to ensure compliance with
federal regulations, state statutes, and university regulations. This case study describes how
UCF created a new conflict of interest policy, created new institutional procedures, and used its
on-line systems to ease the implementation of the revised PHS regulations.
Keywords: financial conflict of interest, PHS final rule 2011, University of Central Florida, 1995 PHS
regulations, conflict of commitment
37
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the 1995
regulations was to ensure that the
design, conduct and publication
of research were reasonably free
from bias generated through
financial gain of an individual or
institution conducting research . .
..
In 1995 the Public Health Service (PHS)
and the Office of the Secretary of Human
Health Services under the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS)
published regulations (42 CFR 50 Subpart F
and 45 CFR 94) to promote objectivity and
ensure integrity in research endeavors
funded by PHS agencies, which includes
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (The
The 1995 regulations began to prove
Federal Register, p. 53256, 76:165 [August 25,
inadequate as private biomedical research
2011). NIH is the largest federal research
funding soared from $37.1 billion in 1994 to
granting agency with $30.9 billion invested
$94.3 billion in 2003, well exceeding federal
annually in medical research (NIH Budget,
funding. Despite the billions of dollars in
2012).
biomedical research funding from the NIH,
Prior to the federal regulations,
industry or private sources provided more
institutions and professional organizations
than 55% of total biomedical research
implemented their own versions of the
funding. The financial relationships
federal mandate. The 1995 regulations
between industry and biomedical
required institutions receiving federal
researchers that followed created the
research funding to create, maintain, and
potential for compromises in research
enforce written financial conflict of interest
integrity, jeopardizing the public trust and
policies (FCOI) to ensure the FCOI is
the public health. The DHHS Office of the
identified, mitigated, or eliminated in the
Inspector General (OIG) reported in 2009
conduct of research. The 1995 regulation
that “vulnerabilities exist at grantee
also required principal investigators to
institutions regarding conflicts.” This report
disclose potential FCOI and to comply with
and increased public scrutiny ultimately led
their institution’s FCOI policies. The
to the adoption of changes to the 1995
purpose of the 1995 regulations was to
regulation in 2011 (The Federal Register, p.
ensure that the design, conduct, and
53257, 76:165 [August 25, 2011]).
publication of research was reasonably free
UCF’s Preparedness
from bias generated through financial gain
Background
by an individual or institution conducting
In 2009 UCF’s Office of Research &
research (The Federal Register, p. 53256,
Commercialization, University Compliance
76:165 [August 25, 2011]).
and Ethics Office, Office of Faculty
38
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
Relations, and Office of General Counsel
investigator’s submitted disclosure data
joined in an effort to overhaul and formalize
with information on file for the
the university’s procedures concerning
investigator’s proposals, awards,
financial conflict of interest (FCOI) and
subcontracts, other agreements, inventions,
conflict of commitment (COC) to ensure
and technology transfer licenses. This was
compliance with federal regulations, state
an important feature for UCF’s institutional
statutes, and university policies. At this
reviewers who may not have always known
time, a simplistic one-page document was
the interrelated facets of an investigator’s
replaced with a comprehensive electronic
research endeavors.
conflict of interest (COI) and conflict of
UCF’s conflict of interest and
commitment on-line system is
implemented within the
university’s Academic Research
and Grants Information System
(ARGIS®), used exclusively by
researchers, research
administrators, staff, and
university administrators for
tracking all research contract and
grant activity from pre-award
through commercialization.
commitment (COC) reporting, monitoring,
and tracking system. Requirements for
reporting, reviewing, approving, and
storing disclosures drastically changed from
disassociated papers in file cabinets to a
unified, central electronic repository
containing detailed disclosures as well as
state exemptions and monitoring plans.
This new repository is available to the UCF
administration, departments, and research
administrators.
Online Systems
UCF’s conflict of interest and
commitment on-line system is implemented
UCF’s ARGIS® system clearly identifies
within the university’s Academic Research
the types of potential conflict of interest
and Grants Information System (ARGIS®),
activities requiring disclosure, as well as the
used exclusively by researchers, research
rationale for the questions asked. During
administrators, staff, and university
the reporting of potential conflicts, UCF
administrators for tracking all research
investigators are provided with links to
contract and grant activity from pre-award
policies, regulations, and definitions of
through commercialization. By
terms for each question asked through the
incorporating the disclosure submission,
use of underlined terms and an information
review, approval, monitoring, and tracking
icon next to each question. For those UCF
process digitally within ARGIS®, UCF
investigators completing the disclosure but
gained the advantage of correlating each
not involved with outside activities, the
39
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
form is short with just 10 Yes/No style
Commercialization for a regulatory review.
questions. When UCF investigators
Lastly, the disclosure or amendment is
positively affirm that certain activities or
routed to UCF’s Faculty Relations Office for
situations apply, the on-line submission
a final administrative review. If during the
form expands to prompt for additional sub-
review a disclosure indicates a potential
questions. Multiple responses to each of the
conflict of interest, the disclosure is diverted
10 questions can also be provided if the
to the UCF Conflict of Interest Committee
investigator works with more than one
for review and recommendations. The
outside entity.
ARGIS® system requires comments from the
Once an investigator submits the report
reviewers, which are viewable by all
of potential conflict of interest, disclosures
reviewers, the investigator, and the COI
are directly routed for review and approval
committee members, thereby establishing
to the investigator’s immediate supervisor,
context and an historical record. Figure 1
the department chair, college dean, and,
provides an example and overview of
depending on the responses, the compliance
UCF’s conflict of interest and commitment
officer in UCF’s Office of Research &
process and system.
Figure 1. UCF Conflict of Interest & Commitment System—Overview
40
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
conflict of interest or conflict of
UCF’s 5 Steps to Implementation of the
PHS 2011 Regulations
commitment in research policy. This new
Upon issuance of the PHS 2011
policy expands on the existing university
regulations for each PHS-funded grant or
policy, addressing FCOI and COC by
cooperative agreement, UCF needed to
expanding who must disclose, when they
make further changes to its existing policies
must disclose, why they must disclose,
and on-line system. With the university
what they must report, and in the new
administration’s commitment and an
FCOI guidelines, the remedies UCF will
institutional culture of disclosure already
enforce in the event of noncompliance. To
established three years prior through its on-
ensure the policy conformed to the revised
line disclosure system, UCF was well
PHS regulations, the checklist published by
equipped to revise its processes and
the NIH was consulted. The checklist is
implement the regulations on time. UCF
available at:
revised and expanded not only the
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coi/chec
questions asked of investigators but
klist_policy_dev_20120412.pdf (NIH, 2012).
extended the requirement to disclose and
comply to award subrecipients and other
To effectively address both
financial conflict of interest and
commitment as it applies to
research, UCF established a new
conflict of interest or conflict of
commitment in research policy.
researchers who participate in the design,
conduct, or reporting of research. UCF’s
administration also decided to apply its
revised 2012 COI and COC policy to all
sponsored and non-sponsored research
projects, not just PHS-funded grants and
Under the final rule UCF is required to
agreements. With anticipated adoption of
the revised PHS regulations by other
monitor significant financial interest for all
agencies over time, UCF wanted to be in
investigators (including their spouses and
compliance by consistently managing all
children) responsible for the design,
research activities. UCF began its process to
conduct, or reporting of research, not just
ensure compliance with the final rule by
the principal investigator. The financial
taking the following steps.
threshold for disclosure dropped from
Step 1—Created a Potential COI and
COC Research Policy
$10,000 to $5,000 and requires disclosure of
remuneration and/or equity interest and
To effectively address both financial
any income realized from non-university
conflict of interest and commitment as it
intellectual property rights that exceeds
applies to research, UCF established a new
$5,000 to be reported. Additionally, all
41
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
extramural travel costs paid on behalf of an
2. New policy announcement sent by the
investigator and related to the investigator’s
President and Provost to the Faculty
institutional responsibilities must be
Senate.
disclosed. Implementing these procedures
3. New policy announcement sent by the
to comply with the final rule will result in
Vice President for Research Office to
additional federal reporting obligations for
Deans, Associate Deans, and Chairs.
UCF, specifically for PHS sponsored
4. New policy announcement sent by the
awards. ARGIS® will be used to track, store
Vice President for Research to
and produce reports for submission to
administrative unit directors affected by
sponsoring agencies as required.
the policy change.
5. New policy announcement sent by the
. . . UCF is required to monitor
significant financial interest for all
investigators (including their
spouses and children) responsible
for the design, conduct, or reporting
of research, not just the principal
investigator. The financial threshold
for disclosure dropped from $10,000
to $5,000 and requires disclosure of
remuneration and/or equity interest
and any income realized from nonuniversity intellectual property
rights that exceeds $5,000 to be
reported.
Director of Compliance, Office of
Research & Commercialization, to
academic and research unit faculty and
administrators.
6. Policy information statement provided
to new faculty upon appointment.
7. New web page was established and
dedicated to the conflict of interest
policy.
8. On-line COI system training updated to
refer to new policy and to inform users
of changes to the disclosure questions
when completing their submission.
UCF’s policy can be found at:
http://www.policies.ucf.edu/documents/
4-
To communicate the revised policy and
guidelines document across the university,
504.2ReportingaPotentialConflictofInter
the following communication plan was
estorConflictofCommitmentinReseachFi
executed:
nalonLetterhead08-20-12.pdf
1. New policy announcement sent by
the President and Provost to the
Dean’s Council and Vice Presidents.
.
42
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
as those described herein. UCF is preparing
Step 2—Created COI and COC Policy
Guidelines
additional written guidelines for its
Perhaps of equal or greater importance
subrecipient’s investigators to participate
is ensuring that when a new policy is
and comply with UCF’s FCOI policies.
established, a guideline is created to advise
administrative staff and investigators on the
UCF is requiring a disclosure from
all of its investigators, and also
subrecipient’s investigators on all
proposals and awards, not just
PHS awards and agreements.
implementation and procedures to ensure
FCOI and COC policy compliance. UCF has
done this in a comprehensive guideline
document incorporated into the new policy.
If an investigator has a financial interest
Enforcement of policies requires careful
exceeding $5,000, related to an
investigator’s institutional responsibilities,
consideration. In establishing its new
UCF requires disclosure prior to application
policies and procedures, UCF formulated
to a sponsor and no later than time of
remedies within its guidelines that apply
award and prior to the expenditure of any
when an investigator fails to comply with
funds. If new activity or discovery of a
the new policy. The institutional remedies
potential COI occurs after research has
require that a project account be suspended
started, disclosure is required within 30
until the investigator complies; inactivation
days.
of projects and accounts; and delay,
suspension, or termination of subrecipient
UCF is requiring a disclosure from all of
its investigators and also subrecipient’s
agreements if their investigators have not
investigators on all proposals and awards,
completed training or not submitted the
not just PHS awards and agreements. The
disclosures required. Lastly, personnel
subrecipient can choose to either adhere to
disciplinary action(s) may be implemented
UCF’s policies or provide certification that
by UCF to ensure compliance with the
its own conflict of interest policy complies
university’s conflict of interest policies and
with Title 42 CFR Parts 50 and 94. Should
procedures, should other measures prove to
the subrecipient be unable to provide this
be ineffective.
certification, UCF will require the
Step 3—Implemented Financial
Conflict of Interest Training
subrecipient and its investigators to be
An important supplement to the FCOI
subject to UCF policies, procedures, and
guidelines. This includes participation by
guidelines is the inclusion of mandatory
the subrecipient’s investigators in UCF’s
training for investigators prior to
mandatory training programs on FCOI such
participation in any research, to occur no
43
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
less than once every four years. UCF’s
training to their graduate students during
Office of Research & Commercialization has
the sponsored research activity.
the responsibility of providing and
A Responsible Conduct in Research
overseeing the FCOI training as well as
workshop series was also established by the
tracking the investigator’s completion. The
UCF College of Graduate Studies and in
training is designed to educate researchers,
concert with the Office of Research &
raising awareness of both the new policy
Commercialization. This workshop series is
and UCF’s reporting requirements. UCF’s
required for each doctoral candidate and
training implementation plan requires on-
addresses conflict of interest scenarios as
line training through the Collaborative
well as ethical decision making and
Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) for
personal integrity.
faculty, staff, and students responsible for
Step 4—Establish Conflict of Interest
Committee
the design, conduct, and reporting of
As UCF’s activities in research grow, so
research. At the time of proposal
submission, any investigator expected to
does the complexity of and opportunity for
have these research responsibilities must be
potential conflicts. For example, six years
identified among the research team
ago UCF expanded its program offerings
members, including students. Completion
with a new College of Medicine,
of two CITI modules is required prior to
concentrating on biomedical research which
engaging in funded research activity, while
can be prone to FCOI issues. UCF will
Module 4 is optional.
establish a new Conflict of Interest
Committee to review significant financial
 Module #1: Financial Conflicts of Interest:
Overview, Investigator Responsibilities, and
interests reported by investigators.
COI Rules
Appropriately applying the bias principle to
determine true conflicts will require people
 Module #2: Institutional Responsibilities as
who are trained and responsible, and who
They Affect Investigators
have a high level of appropriate expertise to
 Module #4: Conflicts of Commitment,
Conscience, and Institutional Conflicts of
understand the nuances of various research
Interest (optional)
situations. In addition to establishing a
The minimum requirement for any student
Conflict of Interest Committee, UCF’s Office
responsible for the design, conduct, and
of Research and Commercialization intends
reporting of sponsored research is to
to recruit a full-time, dedicated compliance
complete CITI Module 1. Principal
officer to manage the FCOI program. The
Investigators are also encouraged to
new compliance officer and committee will
provide conflict of interest and other ethical
44
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
review and monitor reported significant
Step 5—Modified Proposal Form and
Potential Conflict Disclosure
Questions
financial conflicts of interest at UCF.
When a potential significant financial
UCF is implementing its new policy on
interest is reported, UCF’s compliance
officer will refer the disclosure to UCF’s
reporting of conflicts of interest through
Conflict of Interest Committee which will
procedural updates to two key forms
determine whether a conflict may exist and
completed by investigators: 1) the proposal
the appropriate mitigation measures to
transmittal form used internally to initiate
manage or eliminate the conflict by
and receive approval for a research
requiring state exemption requests,
proposal, and 2) the annual employee
monitoring plans, or other management
disclosure of conflicts of interest and
plans to ensure the research is free from
commitment.
The on-line UCF proposal transmittal
bias or financial conflicts. ARGIS® will track
a disclosure throughout the review process,
and review form in ARGIS® was modified
to include recommended actions, and will
so that during the electronic routing of the
produce reports as required to be sent to the
proposal, the principal investigator is asked
research sponsor. Some general information
to indicate who among the project team will
about an investigator’s significant financial
be responsible for the design, conduct, or
interests will also be made publicly
reporting of research. Each person so
available on a UCF-dedicated web page.
identified is then notified via email of their
need to respond to UCF’s FCOI disclosure
questions. The ARGIS® system then tracks
When a potential significant
financial interest is reported,
UCF’s compliance officer will refer
the disclosure to UCF’s Conflict of
Interest Committee, which will
determine whether a conflict may
exist and the appropriate
mitigation measures to manage or
eliminate the conflict by requiring
state exemption requests,
monitoring plans, or other
management plans to ensure the
research is free from bias or
financial conflicts.
for compliance the date of disclosure and
appropriately manages for multi-year
awards and changes in project staffing.
Although questions regarding financial
conflict of interest were included in UCF’s
existing COI disclosure, the final rule’s
change of the significant financial threshold
required UCF to modify the questions
asked of investigators. The new questions
have also been rephrased to refer to an
investigator’s “institutional responsibilities”
versus simply research. The type of
remuneration an investigator receives,
45
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
including the form of equity interests held,
Figure 2 highlights the new, revised
reimbursed or extramural travel, and non-
questions asked by UCF of investigators to
university royalty income, including its
assess whether a significant financial
sources, were added to the list of questions.
conflict of interest exists or not.
Figure 2. UCF Revised Disclosure Form (showing questions 1‒3 re: FCOI)
46
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
system ARGIS®, made the plan for
CONCLUSION
implementation of the new procedures
When asked whether or not the 2011
within one year feasible and without
revised PHS regulations fixed something
unnecessary complications. The
that was broken, UCF’s Director of
effectiveness of UCF’s newly revised
Compliance and Contracts and Grants
conflict of interest policies and procedures
replied, “No. The final rule just demands a
to address the final rule will be judged over
more complete disclosure in order to
time and following the next A-133 or OIG
remain in compliance. And, this change
audits.
puts more of the burden on the institution
versus the investigator. Also, the new
AUTHOR’S NOTE
reporting requirements to the government
The authors wish to thank Mr. Doug
are more stringent.” When faced with the
choice of having federal funding suspended
Backman, Director of Compliance and
or remain in compliance, UCF acted swiftly
Director of Contracts and Grants in the
to stay compliant. While this new rule still
Office of Research and Commercialization,
does not address institutional conflicts of
University of Central Florida, for providing
interest, it places the burden on institutions
institutional information on conflict of
receiving PHS funding to be the monitoring
interest policies and procedures. The
and enforcement arm for research integrity.
opinions expressed herein are those of the
UCF employees responsible for making
authors only and are not those of the
policy and procedural changes, along with
University of Central Florida.
its web-based research administration
LITERATURE CITED
Interview with D. Backman, Director of Compliance and Contracts and Grants (2012, July 3). (T.
McClellan, Interviewer).
National Institutes of Health. (2012, October 18). Grants and funding. Retrieved May 29, 2013,
from NIH Office of Extramural Research:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coi/checklist_policy_dev_20120412.pdf
National Institutes of Health. (2012, March 1). Budget. Retrieved July 8, 2012, from National
Institutes of Health: http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm
“Responsibility of Applicants for Promoting Objectivity in Research for which Public Health
Service Funding is Sought and Responsible Prospective Contractors, Final Rule.” The
47
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
Federal Register 76:165 (25 August 2011) pp. 53256‒53257. Retrieved June 6, 2012, from
GPO: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-25/pdf/2011-21633.pdf
University of Central Florida. (2012, July 2). Reporting a potential conflict of interest or conflict
of commitment in research. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida.
48
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
BOOK REVIEW
Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency,
and Participation in Practice
Daniel Lathrop & Laurel Ruma (Eds.)
O’Reilly Media, 2010,
ISBN 978-0-596-80435-0. $24.99. 402 pp.
REVIEWED BY:
Laura Letbetter
Georgia Institute of Technology
technology development and the
The ability to handle change is
transparency movement are reshaping our
fundamental to success in the field of
world, and research administrators are
research administration. Research
certainly a subset of this audience.
administrators must keep abreast of
Contributors to this collection include long
changes in government in order to be
marchers and relative newcomers, and
successful and to be of service to their
themes include the promise of open
stakeholders. This compendium of 34 short
government, its evolution, current barriers,
essays centers on the idea that we are
and potential solutions.
witnessing a radical transformation of
Most of the contributors seem to share
government as we know it—specifically,
an optimistic vision of open government’s
that technological developments are
ability to solve problems. In chapter 3, “By
moving us toward a more participatory,
the People”, long-time public domain
collaborative, transparent, model of
advocate Carl Malamud explains why he
democracy described as open government.
views “the Internet wave” as a continuation
Such a transformation will inevitably
of principles established by the Founding
impact research administration.
Fathers. Technology allows “the
The book is geared toward participants
underpinnings and machinery of
in the technology community as well as a
government” to be used by the people, not
more general audience interested in how
just by those in power (p. 43). In chapter 14,
49
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
“Emergent Democracy,” Charles Armstrong
the private sector can create and build
argues that “the Internet . . . will lead to
applications that produce value in ways the
democratic systems that are more fluid, less
government could never do on its own,
centralized, and more responsive than those
much as programmers contribute to the
we know today . . .” (p. 167). He calls this
development of open source software. He
system Emergent Democracy.
asks the question, “what lessons can the
In chapter 17, “Disrupting Washington’s
government take from the success of
Golden Rule”, Ellen Miller, executive
computer platforms, as it tries to harness
director of the Sunlight Foundation and
the power of technology to remake
founder of both the Center for Responsive
government?” (p. 15). He argues in favor of
Politics and Public Campaign, discusses
open standards, simple systems, designing
how recent advances in transparency with
for participation and robustness, learning
regard to campaign financing are allowing
from your “hackers,” data mining,
citizens themselves to conduct data
incentivizing experimentation, and leading
analysis, leading us toward “healthier
by example.
debate” and “a fairer, more vibrant
In chapter 5 (which I would recommend
democracy”. She asserts that “the old
reading before chapter 2), “Engineering
paternalism is dying” (p. 199).
Good Government”, software designer
The final chapter is a case study of Utah
Howard Dierking walks the reader through
and how the state has in recent years made
the idea of “software design as a new
great strides in adopting e-government and
metaphor for exploring the dynamics of
offering online services. This movement
government” (p. 80). He defines for the lay
required champions in every branch of
reader several terms common to
government, the use of Web 2.0 principles
programmers and applies this terminology
and tools, a lot of strategic planning, and
to the evolution of government in the
provision of real-time, accessible
United States. For example, he views the
government data to the citizens of the state.
Constitution as a well-designed standards
Several essays draw a comparison
reference model, in contrast with the Articles
between the open source software
of Confederation, which he views as a
movement and the development of a new,
stovepipe antipattern, the programming term
more participatory model of government. In
for a patchwork of multiple application
chapter 2, “Government as a Platform”, Tim
development efforts that become difficult or
O’Reilly argues in favor of “platform
even impossible to integrate. Attempts to
thinking”, asserting that government must
resolve the stovepipe antipattern lead to the
be re-envisioned as a platform upon which
blob or god class, defined as an even worse
50
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
antipattern “whereby a single entity evolves
transparency not by how much data has
to assume a large set of responsibilities
been released but by whether it is actually
outside of those to which it was originally
improving people’s lives. In chapter 12,
purposed.”
“After the Collapse: Open Government and
In other words, designing good
the Future of Civil Service”, David Eaves
government is like designing good
addresses the cultural shift that needs to
software: the architecture should have an
take place within the government to move
appropriate balance of flexibility and
civil servants away from a culture of
prescriptiveness, as well as a standards
hoarding data and toward a culture of
reference model that provides a unifying
sharing data. I believe research
vision. Research administrators who must
administrators will recognize an element of
rely on an assortment of systems for
the culture of our field in this statement:
institutional and government data and
Sharing information or labor (as a gift)
approval processes will certainly be able
within civil service increases one’s
relate to the concept of the stovepipe, blob,
usefulness to, and reputation among,
and god class antipatterns!
others within the system. Power and
Chapter 34, “Open Source Software for
influence in this system thus moves
Open Government Agencies”, focuses on
away from the ability to control
“management, technical, and social aspects”
information, and instead shifts to a new
and offers advice and best practices for the
set of skills: the ability to convene,
adoption of open source software. The essay
partner, engage stakeholders, act
is directed at government agencies but is
creatively, and analyze (p. 150).
also worthwhile reading for research
Chapter 18, “Case Study: GovTrack.us”,
administrators who are preparing for a
authored by GovTrack’s founder Josh
major software change and are considering
Tauberer discusses how GovTrack took on
an open source solution.
the challenges posed by the immense
A number of essays in this book address
volume of information, the fact that much of
barriers to the development of open
it is not machine readable, and the
government. Barriers are not only
government’s downright unwillingness to
technological but also cultural. In chapter
make legislative data available to the public.
11, “Citizens’ View of Open Government”,
In chapter 19, “Case Study:
Brian Reich points out that availability of
FollowTheMoney.org”, Edwin Bender
information does not necessarily make
discusses the role that political will plays in
relevant information findable. He argues that
advancing or hindering transparency,
we should measure progress toward
especially at the state government level. Not
51
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
all states require electronic disclosure of
are already participants in the technology
campaign finance information, and those
community and are comfortable with
that do are inconsistent at best with regard
following multiple threads and voices in no
to completeness, quality, searchability, and
particular order. A reader unfamiliar with
maintaining the hardware and architecture
the latest technology and associated
to support a useful disclosure system.
terminology might find this presentation of
In chapter 24, “My Data Can’t Tell You
information more challenging, though the
That”, Bill Allison of the Sunlight
conversational style and the contributors’
Foundation also discusses the problem of
efforts to define terms such as Government
data quality, using an example that any
2.0, API, and open source software make it
research administrator who deals with
possible for the technologically uninitiated
FFATA or ARRA can certainly appreciate:
to gain some understanding of the
the flaws in the way data on federal
transformation the contributors endeavor to
spending are collected and reported in
describe.
Recovery.gov and USA.Spending.gov.
A number of the book’s illustrations are
Knowing who was awarded funds is not the
screen shots that are blurry and difficult to
same thing as knowing how they were
decipher; however, the interested reader
actually spent. Research administrators will
could choose to go online for better visuals
also recognize barriers to open government
as needed, so the screen shots do not
in chapter 30, “Freedom of Information
necessarily detract from the reading
Acts”, in which Brant Houston discusses the
experience. Overall, many research
exemptions, denials, and delays that plague
administrators will understand and
FOIA laws.
appreciate the open government concept,
Throughout the collection, these short,
the necessity of adapting to technological
pithy essays read rather like the web itself—
changes, and the emphasis on collaboration
the links among the ideas and themes are
and participation to create public value, as
clear, but it is difficult to identify an overall
well as the challenges inherent in the
structure or thematic arrangement among
continued evolution of the open
the multiple threads. This web-like reading
government model.
experience will appeal most to readers who
52
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Andrea Adkins is an Assistant Director in the Technology Transfer Office at the University of
Central Florida. Ms. Adkins works with faculty, students, and staff on intellectual property
matters originating from research and educational activities at UCF and licensing technologies
to industry and new business start-ups. Prior to joining UCF in 1999, Ms. Adkins worked in the
architecture, engineering and construction industry. Ms. Adkins also co-founded a small
business that specialized in manufacturers’ representative services. Ms. Adkins expects to
receive a Master of Science degree in Research Administration from UCF in August 2013.
Mekibib Altaye is a Research Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s
Hospital Medical Center. He has been conducting biostatistical research and consulting for
more than 10 years and is currently the director of the Biostatistical Consulting Unit in the
Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. He
is an active member of American Statistical Association, International Biostatistics Society: East
North America Region, and the Organization of Human Brain Mapping.
Nancy B. Bell is the Principal of Research Image, a consulting company that provides
workshops and other services to institutions wishing to increase investigator grantsmanship
skills. She has had more than 30 years of experience in research administration, including grant
writing, principal investigator, workshop provider, and pre- and post-administration positions.
Her experiences with faculty extend across a wide variety of funding agencies and academic
research arenas. Upon “retirement” from the public sector, she founded Research Image to
continue her work with faculty investigators. She is the developer of the SRA Grantsmanship
certificate program and recently received the SRA Distinguished Faculty Award.
Kimberley W. Cole is the Associate Dean for Administration and Finance for Rutgers
University, Business School – Newark and New Brunswick. She holds a Ph.D. in higher
education administration from the University of South Florida and is also a Certified Public
Accountant (CPA). She has worked in the field of sponsored projects at various levels for more
than 15 years. She is a member of the National Council of University Research Administrators
(NCURA).
Francis W. DeAngelis is a Sponsored Projects Manager at the Children’s Hospital of
Philadelphia. He has worked in sponsored projects administration at various levels for both
pre- and post-award for over 10 years. He has been a member of the National Council of
University Research Administrators (NCURA) and Society of Research Administrators (SRA).
Pollyanne Frantz, Ph.D., CPRA, is the Director of Grants Resources & Services at Appalachian
State University in Boone, NC, where she provides expertise, services, and resources to facilitate
faculty and staff pursuit of internal and extramural funding. Dr. Frantz holds graduate degrees
in library science and higher education administration from the University of Southern
53
Research Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2 (2013)
Mississippi. She has been funded by the National Science Foundation, Phi Kappa Phi (twice),
and the Mississippi State Board of Animal Health.
Richard F. Ittenbach is a Research Professor of Pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital
Medical Center. He has been conducting biostatistical and biobehavioral research for more than
25 years and is an active member of the American Association for the Advancement for Science,
American Statistical Association, and Society for Clinical Data Management.
Laura Letbetter is a contracting officer at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, GA.
She holds a Master of Arts in English from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Her
background includes teaching, editing, and program administration. She began her research
administration career in 2004 at Kennesaw State University and is a 2012 graduate of NCURA’s
Executive Leadership Program.
Tammie McClellan is the Director of the University of Central Florida's Center for Research
Administration Technologies and Applications (CRATA) and Program Director of the
Department of Information Systems Technology at UCF’s Institute for Simulation and Training
(IST). She has managed over $16 million in external and internal awards, providing information
technology consulting, application development and systems services utilizing the latest
technologies in information systems and the public Internet. She develops advanced World
Wide Web SQL applications to support data management, workflow, and decision-making. Her
range of clientele spans every branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, universities, numerous
commercial and non-profit agencies, as well as university departments where consulting and
development support is offered to guide information system requirements. Her contributions to
UCF and sponsoring organizations have been recognized through various awards and
appointments to special projects. She is an author/co-author and holder of multiple software
copyrights, to include the Academic Research & Grants Information System (ARGIS), which
have been successfully licensed by UCF. McClellan holds a Bachelors of Science in Accounting
from UCF and will receive a Masters of Research Administration in August 2013 from UCF.
John Miner has worked at the Office of Technology Transfer at UCF since 1999 and is an
Assistant Director of Physical Sciences. He graduated with his undergrad degree from UCF in
2001 and is scheduled to graduate in August 2013 with his Masters of Research Administration
degree. He is active in the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), serving as
an Assistant Vice President for Metrics and Surveys. He chairs the annual Salary Survey, a
publication examining the salaries in the Technology Transfer field for academic and non-profit
organizations across North America, Europe and Asia.
54