Member Cameo: Joshua Roney

Who: Joshua Roney
Where: University of Central Florida
Number of Years in Research Development: 7
Joined NORDP in: 2013

Joshua RoneyWhat is your RD work?

I am part of the Research Development team in the UCF Office of Research & Commercialization (ORC). As part of the central office, we support faculty researchers across the University through a variety of outreach services, proposal support, and funding opportunities. Our goal is to help researchers find funding and support them in preparing competitive proposals. Our focus areas are New Faculty and large interdisciplinary projects, but we also assist any faculty that request our help.

What is your professional background?

Before I joined Research Development, I was a Composition Instructor at a local Community College. I wanted to continue my higher education, so I applied to an Assistantship position in the Research Development team in 2010. They utilized my editing skills for proposal review, and my mentor taught me about multifaceted kinds of researcher support, grantsmanship fundamentals, and helped me identify specialized areas of support that I could provide. In late 2012, I joined the team in a permanent capacity. I am currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Texts and Technology, with a focus in technical communication and collaboration resources.

What attracted you to NORDP?

Jo Ann Smith, my mentor at UCF, introduced me to NORDP and encouraged me to join. The depth of experience and information, as well as the continual updates on important topics, makes NORDP a vital learning and collaboration resource.

How does your NORDP membership enhance your own career?

The openness to share information, resources, and advice has been valuable to my ongoing training and has helped me to plan my future as a Research Development professional. The topics discussed via the listserv, conferences, and phone meetings have been great indicators of what is occurring at other institutions and what is on the horizon. I look forward to continuing to build a network of colleagues at NORDP and contributing to our collective resources.

Compiled by Daniel Campbell, Member Services Committee

NORDP 2018: Call for Pre-Conference Workshop Proposals – Application link open!

Dear Colleagues,

The submission system is now open to accept proposals for NORDP 2018 pre-conference workshops. You can access the system HERE. We are seeking expert presenter teams with compelling and relevant content to deliver Pre-Conference Workshops on Monday, May 7, 2018 prior to the NORDP 2018 Annual Research Development Conference in Arlington, VA. This year’s conference theme is Resilience in a Shifting Research Landscape.

These Pre-Conference workshops have the following goals:

  • Provide intensive, interactive learning activities and professional development opportunities in selected areas of research development that cannot be adequately presented in a typical one-hour NORDP conference concurrent session; and
  • Successfully deliver clearly identified learning objectives and provide relevant takeaways for a targeted audience.

Workshop proposals will be considered on any topic relevant to the broad NORDP membership and, if appropriate, linked to the conference theme of Resilience in a Shifting Research Landscape. Based on last year’s conference evaluations, we have identified several topic areas of interest:

  • Faculty development programs and activities; proposals regarding new and junior faculty development are particularly encouraged
  • Building and enhancing diversity of the research development professional workforce
  • Working with other organizations on campus
  • Bringing private sector tools and techniques into the proposal development office
  • Moving research into practice
  • Practical strategies for teambuilding and implementing team science findings into practice
  • Starting and building the research development office
  • Creativity in research development
  • Professional development for the RD professional

The above list is not exhaustive—the Pre-Conference Workshop Committee welcomes proposals in any area that achieve the goals for these sessions. Proposals are welcomed from previous pre-conference workshop presenters and applicants. Proposals are also encouraged that reflect the breadth of NORDP members, including research development roles and positions, levels of knowledge and experience, academic disciplines, and institution types.

Each workshop will be four OR six hours in length and must have at least two presenters. Enrollment will be limited to 30-35 participants. Presenters will be expected to develop intensive, interactive workshop experiences with appropriate hand-outs and links to additional resources that participants can integrate into their professional activities.

Selected presenter teams will be expected to provide updates to the Pre-Conference Workshop Committee regarding the development of their presentations, including learning objectives, outlines, and handouts/resources. Webinars and resources on effective presentation techniques will be offered to all selected teams. Further, members of the Pre-Conference Workshop Committee will provide direct support to each team to provide feedback and assistance to help ensure the highest quality for each workshop. Presenters will be paid an honorarium for their preparation and presentation.

To propose a pre-conference workshop at NORDP 2018 in Arlington, application materials must be submitted via InfoReady no later than Monday, November 20, 2017 by 5:00 PM local time.

The application will require the following information:

  1. Workshop Information
  2. Proposed competencies (knowledge, skills, tools) and learning objectives
  3. Format and educational strategies, e.g., interactive delivery
  4. Targeted audience(s), i.e., research development roles and positions, levels of knowledge and experience, academic disciplines, institution types
  5. Workshop length – four or six hours
  6. Presenter Information
  7. Expertise and experience on the proposed competencies and learning objectives
  8. Expertise and experience in presenting interactive workshops

The criteria used in the selection process mirror these categories, and also take into consideration the goal of addressing a variety of topics and targeted audiences. Selections will be made by early January 2018.

NORDP reserves the right to cancel pre-conference workshops due to lack of enrollment. Workshop participants will be charged additional registration fees to attend these pre-conference workshops. The decision whether to cancel will be made when the early-bird Conference registration discount ends. Selected presenters will be expected to begin development of their materials in advance of this decision.

If you would like to discuss this opportunity in greater detail, please contact Eva Allen or Kari Whittenberger-Keith.

NORDP fosters a culture of inclusive excellence by actively promoting and supporting diversity, inclusion and equity in all its forms to expand our worldview, enrich our work, and elevate our profession. 

NORDP 2018 Abstracts Due Friday, 11/3

Two week warning! The Call for Abstracts for NORDP’s 10th Annual Research Conference in 2018 closes on November 3rd. If you have started a submission, don’t forget to complete it and hit send! The full announcement from Conference Co-Chairs Karen Eck and Kari Whittenberger-Keith can be found here. Some important details are highlighted below:

  • Click HERE to access the online proposal submission form. The Call for Abstracts document is also available for download on the conference home page.
  • Deadline for Proposals: Friday, November 3, 2017, 11:59 PM Pacific Time. The Program Committee intends to notify presenters by early January 2018.

Looking forward to seeing all of you in Arlington next May!

Michael Thompson
Conference Marketing Committee

NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: Defining and Measuring Successful Collaborations


  • Roxana Ross, Grant Writing Manager, Nova Southeastern University
  • Karin Scarpinato, Associate Vice President for Research, Florida Atlantic University
  • Maureen Pelham, Director of Research Development, Florida International University
  • Camille Coley, Vice President, American Museum of Natural History

Thanks to our session note-taker!

Key points from the session. We learned:

  • Use multiple tools and approaches to measure the success of collaborations
  • Consider the relevance and cost effectiveness of the measurements you are using
  • Select the measures that will provide information that will be useful to you
  • Measure progress and effectiveness in the short term as well as the long term
  • Don’t overlook unconventional measures 

    What did you hear at this presentation that surprised you?           

    One institution was able to stimulate successful collaborations and new lines of research activity through modest investments of $2000.

    What resources did you discover at this presentation?

    The team used a texting tool to interact with the audience before and during the presentation. The tool can be found online here: They also had handouts that included collaboration assessment checklists and tools. Many of these are available online and referenced in their presentation.

    What was the most interesting question asked by an audience member, and what was the presenter(s)’ response?

    One audience member asked how institutions that were running seed grant programs were gathering information and data on measurements of success, and for how long after the award. Some programs didn’t follow up, while others required reports on publications, follow up funding, other collaborations, etc. every 6 months or 1 year.


NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: What’s Your Story? Helping Faculty Communicate the Value and Impact of Research

What’s Your Story? Helping Faculty Communicate the Value and Impact of Research

Presenter: Jill Jividen, Assistant Director for Research Development, University of Michigan Medical School Office of Research

Thanks to our session note-taker, Karen Fletcher!

Key points from the session. We learned:

  • Why Communicate?
    1. Research is largely taxpayer funded.
    2. It is a University’s public mission.
    3. It helps faculty increase their competitiveness.
  • The 3M’s to construct your message: Message should be Miniature, Meaningful, and Memorable (adapted from AAAS).
  • Communicating Science Seminar Series. (Leverage your existing expertise and use in-house speakers from the library, faculty, etc.) Could include information on:
    • PR – Consider the audience and science literacy: 80% of people are interested in scientific discoveries yet 50% of them read below an 8th grade reading level.
    • Social Media – if you wouldn’t say it in an elevator, don’t say it online. Write for the web. Readers’ eyes trace an “F” format and the top left is typically what gets read.
    • Scholarly Communication – use the library expertise: include data management, public and open access, publishing, measuring impact.
    • Plain Language – Plain Language Act of 2010 – it’s a law! – if working with the government, you must write/communicate in plain language. Strategies could include simplifying language and using analogies (just avoid clichés). Consider a workshop where faculty submit an abstract and during the workshop you re-write it in plain language.
    • Data Visualization – introduce this concept: visualization landscape, design principles, interpretation, campus resources.
  • Include Science Activism and related ethics in Communication course material.
  • Include information on Visual Abstract as visual abstract increase article dissemination.

What did you hear at this presentation that surprised you? Alt metric scores are affecting NIH impact scores.

What resources did you discover at this presentation? This slide show is online with active links to some of the presentation material in the Communicating Science Seminar Series mentioned above.


NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: How to write a successful NIH Career Development Award (K award)

How to write a successful NIH Career Development Award (K award)

Presenters:           Mark Roltsch, University of Western Florida

Thanks to session our session note-taker, Burr Zimmerman, Urban Venture Group!

Key points from the session. We learned:

  • There are many different kinds of K awards
    • Some schools support K-awards, some don’t:  K awards require the faculty member have 75% protected time for research
    • Medical Schools – they tend to like K-awards. They are viewed as stepping stone to R01s, and five years of training  should get them there.
    • K progression: Start with T32s or institutional K awards, then ‘real K’s’, then R01
      • The R03 award may only be open to folks who have K awards in that institute
      • The R21 is for exploratory, cutting edge; not necessarily good for junior faculty
    • Types of K awards
      • K01 – basic research
      • K08 – clinical research
      • K23 – patient-oriented research
      • K25 – quantitative research
      • K01  – diversity award / minority serving institution
      • K99/R00 – post doc who is transitioning
        • Walk into job interview with 3 years of funding
        • Don’t have to be US citizen, so lots of applicants
  • Selecting a target institute – faculty should:
    • Match topical area with your mentor’s funding source
    • Email program officer, get feedback (not just topical, but also which mechanism – K01, K23, etc.)
    • Carefully read the PA/RFA to identify participating institutes and their specific topics
    • Engage with NIH staff at the conferences your mentor attends
  • Read the PA/RFA
    • Check dollar amount (for MDs, $100k for 75% of time is a paycut – usually the university or school supplements the salary)
    • The review section is what to emphasize in your application
  • What does it take to get funded?
    • Essential: well-funded primary mentor (if he or she hasn’t mentored before, form a mentoring team)
      • Need to emphasize mentoring experience, NIH funding
      • Mentor needs to be co-located. Across the hall ideal. Across town isn’t great. Across the state doesn’t work.
    • The presenter is from University of West Florida; his own institution wouldn’t ever apply for a K-award – can’t get it.
      • But! Some diversity K awards are possible for smaller institutions.
    • Keys to K award success
      • Time to write a compliant, compelling application
      • Good research idea
      • Quality candidate
      • Qualified mentor
      • Well developed training program
    • Biggest K funders are NHLBI, NIMH, NIDDK
      • NIA funding 40% of K-awards
      • NIGMS funds 85% of K08 awards!

What did you hear at this presentation that surprised you? 
K awards can have extremely high funding rates (e.g. NIGMS K08s 86% funded), and average over 30% for entire K spectrum. But the criteria mean only a very small cadre of schools have high success rates

Also, R21s may not be a good mechanism for generating data for your first R01 – they are too competitive and are pooled with experienced researchers. R21’s are highly, highly competitive, and if you’re junior faculty, it might not be a great place to compete, as you don’t get early investigator bonus points.

What resources did you discover at this presentation?
The main resource emphasized was NIH Reporter. Might not be a ‘discovery’, but the presenter emphasized how rich and useful the data are.

Also, FOIA requests are a way to get access to successful applications. Build a library by requesting funded applications. NIH does a better job than some other Federal agencies of providing useful information.

What was the most interesting question asked by an audience member, and what was the presenters’ response?

Different institutes review K awards differently. Funding rates can be very different across K mechanisms. K99 toughest (23%); K23 is 57%, K08 can be nearly 90%.

What else from this session should NORDP members know?  
If you can crack the code (meet all the requirements), K-awards are a great resource. If you can find a nearby, well-funded mentor, then you have a chance!