NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: Defining and Measuring Successful Collaborations

Presenters:

  • 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: https://www.polleverywhere.com. 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.

 

Advertisements

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 2018: Call for Pre-Conference Workshop Proposals

Dear NORDP Members,

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. Information on accessing the InfoReady application system will be provided in the near future via the NORDP website and listserv. A template to provide application guidance until the InfoReady application system is available may be viewed here: 2018 NORDP Pre-Conf Proposals _ Application Template _ Final

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 evaallen@indiana.edu or Kari Whittenberger-Keith kariwk@uwm.edu.

We look forward to reviewing your proposals for what we are confident will be exciting and highly useful professional development experiences.

The NORDP Pre-Conference Workshops Committee:

Eva Allen, Co-Chair, Indiana University
Kari Whittenberger-Keith, Co-Chair, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Jan Abramson, University of Utah
Sarah Bronson, Penn State College of Medicine
Sarah Elvey, Ohio Dominican University
Faye Farmer, Arizona State University
Ron Fleischmann, Duke University
Karen Fletcher, Appalachian State University
Stephanie A. Korcheck, Texas State University
Kim Littlefield, University of South Alabama
Donnalyn Roxey, KnowInnovation
Angela Shotts, University of Alabama
Paul Tuttle, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University
Etta Ward, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

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: Call for Abstracts for Conference Session Topics

lincoln-memorial-getty

NORDP 10th Annual Research Development Conference

May 7-9, 2018

Hyatt Regency Crystal City, Arlington, VA

Dear Colleagues –

We are looking forward to celebrating NORDP’s 10th Annual Conference in 2018 – it’s hard to believe we’ve been getting together for almost a decade! Like you, we look forward to the annual meeting as an opportunity to hear thought-provoking keynotes and attend individual and panel sessions and posters by our colleagues on fundamental, emerging or innovative topics in the continually evolving field of Research Development. Please consider sharing your knowledge and expertise at the 2018 meeting, held in the National Capital Region for our 10th anniversary.

This year’s conference theme is Resilience in a Shifting Research Landscape, with a focus on how we adapt, as professionals supporting individuals, teams and institutions, to changes in how research is conducted, as well as how it is funded and viewed by government and the public at large. At a time where we see an undervaluation of the roles science and scholarship play in our society, what are our strategies to respond, readjust, and help advance our endeavors in research, scholarship, and creative artistry?

A call for NORDP 10th Annual Research Development Conference Session Topics is now open, you can access the online proposal submission form immediately, through November 3, 2017 11:59 PM Pacific Time. Help make sure the Conference meets your professional development needs by submitting an abstract for:

1) An Individual or Group Oral Panel Presentation – intended for individuals or panels of no more than four persons to present information related to the NORDP mission and important to advancing the skills or professional development of conference participants. Panel presentations are most effective when you want to tackle a significant over-arching issue, problem or hot topic in Research Development and showcase data, solutions and programs from a diverse array of institutions or perspectives.

2) The Idea Showcase – designed for individuals or small teams to present posters illustrating their own approaches to problems and solutions in research development, to showcase best practices and case studies and to introduce innovative, even experimental ideas.

Selection Criteria: Session topics must fit within the NORDP mission to advance research development, which is defined as a set of strategic, proactive, catalytic, and capacity-building activities designed to facilitate individual faculty members, teams of researchers, and central research administrations in attracting extramural research funding, creating relationships, and developing and implementing strategies that increase institutional competitiveness. Sessions may target one of five RD Pillars:

RD Fundamentals — Topics that every RD professional needs to know, whether new to the field or an experienced practitioner

Leadership Development in Research Development (LDRD) — Sessions geared toward more strategic (vs. operational) topics and preparing for a leadership role

Professional Development — General topics that apply to professional and personal skill growth at all levels

Funder Updates — What’s new at a specific funding agency as well as broader funding issues in today’s fast changing environment

Other Topics in Research Development — Emerging and new ideas and approaches in the field of RD or something else you propose

Deadline for Proposals: Friday, November 3, 2017, 11:59 PM Pacific Time. Please note that the deadline is earlier this year than in previous years. The Program Committee intends to notify presenters by early January 2018. 

Click HERE to access the online proposal submission form. The Call for Abstracts document is also available for download on the conference home page. Applicants can download this form to prepare their abstracts offline. We look forward to receiving your abstracts!

Best regards,

Karen Eck (Old Dominion University)
Kari Whittenberger-Keith (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee)
2018 Conference Co-chairs

Questions? Contact us at: rdconf@nordp.org

NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: Working with Creatives: Artists in the Interdisciplinary Research Development Process

Working with Creatives: Artists in the Interdisciplinary Research Development Process

Presenters: Jenifer Alonzo, Professional Development Practice Lab, Old Dominion University

Thanks to our session note-taker, Lynne Dahmen!

Key points from the session. We learned:

  • “Creatives” includes all sorts of people including those in the theater, the visual arts, etc.
  • Creatives can be integral parts of teams with outputs, especially in broader impacts.
  • They can also, especially theater folks, help teams work collaboratively.
  • Engage them early in the process, not as an after thought.

What did you hear at this presentation that surprised/impressed you?     

“A key role of a performer is to make their partner shine.” Can we get PIs to work to make the work of other team members ‘shine’?

What else from this session should NORDP members know?      

Remember that MFAs and others in the arts are professionals and well-trained experts.  Treat them as such! Would you ask one of your team members to provide significant input without credit of financial support? Would you ask a consultant to provide services without putting them in a budget?

Remember that working a budget through “FTE” does not always give creatives a fair or living wage that easily aligns with ‘effort’…so think creatively for ways to provide enough funds to support the effort.

This was a great session and I highly recommend working with Jen!

NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: Metrics Selection Across the Research Lifecycle

Metrics Selection Across the Research Lifecycle

Presenters:

Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski, PhD Vice President, Global Academic Relations, Elsevier and Senior Adjunct Instructor, School of Professional Studies, Northwestern University

Andrea Michalek, MS Vice President of Research Metrics, Product Management and Managing Director of Plum Analytics, Elsevier

Key points from the session. We learned:

  • Different researchers have different needs; different metrics throughout research process – input metrics, process metrics, output & outcome metrics – want to understand the societal/economic metric.
  • Different levels of metrics  – There will never be a silver bullet metric – can’t be too dependent on a single metric – can’t take a metric from one level and try to apply it at another level.
  • Metrics that update in real time provide a feedback loop.
  • It can take at least 2-5 years from idea to a published peer-reviewed journal article.  Due to the pace of scholarly publishing, it takes another 3-5 years from the time the work is published to get to critical mass of citation counts. Why wait 5-10 years for this? Can measure much more real time data – slide share presentations – who downloaded, who interacted – preprints, etc.
  • Metrics can show who is reading your article – is it government, industry, academia, etc.

What did you hear at this presentation that surprised you?

Users in different countries select different metrics. Germany is most interested in collaboration metrics. The US is still very traditional with its publications emphasis.

What resources did you discover at this presentation?

SciVal Solutions; PlumX.

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

Q:  What about team science/interdisciplinary metrics?

A:  Universities need to expand their thinking of what counts as scholarly output and the metrics associated with them. There are new schemas in thinking about collaboratorship vs. authorship. Not all collaborators make authorship. How do you measure collaborations? Needs to be more research out there on metrics.

Q: What metrics can I use to measure so that it doesn’t take over my life?

A: Many tools available. Depends on what you need most and what will best fit your institutional needs.

 

NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: Engaging the Arts & Humanities in Extramural and Collaborative Research

Engaging the Arts & Humanities in Extramural and Collaborative Research

Presenters: Kim Patten, Assist. Director, Research Development Services (RDS), University of Arizona
Kim Nicolini, Assoc. for Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences, RDS, University of Arizona

Thanks to our session note-taker, Melinda Laroco Boehm!

Key points from the session. We learned:

  • Frame your research into “fundable ideas.”
  • Help Social Science and Humanities faculty look beyond thinking about “their books” and “their tenure”. Help them take their comprehensive research ideas and apply for funding in “bite-sized chunks.”
  • When packaging Social Science and Humanities research in terms of extramural funding, “time to write your book” is not a fundable concept. Strategize with the faculty members to find fundable concepts within their books and help in deciphering the real life applications that can come from their research.
  • Start to think about museums as more than just places to go see exhibits. Connect Social Science and Humanities faculty to a broader spectrum, as there is not an entity on campus that could NOT use a museum for their research. Examples may include:
    • Example for Humanities? Meeting with the archivist
    • Example: refugee cities, poetry, children to use art for feelings, then art exhibit
    • Example: public engagement
  • Leverage your campus’ resources to be creative for funding in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Look for atypical sources for funding opportunities, e.g. International support office/study abroad office

What did you hear at this presentation that surprised you?          

Fun fact: their campus’ first NEA grant assisted by their RDS office was from the College of Medicine.

What resources did you discover at this presentation? Examples: a website, database or software tool. We’ll link to resources on the blog.          

AEHN: Arts Engagement Humanities Network

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

Suggestion from the audience that discussed how to get Arts and Humanities to focus on their proposal getting trajectories: Ask them the gold watch question: “How do you want to be talked about when you retire? What do you want your legacy to be?” They will be able to tell you their path, and you can find funding that translates to what they want their legacy to be.

What else from this session should NORDP members know?        

Keep a spreadsheet of faculty and their areas of research, and take time to find the connections in an effort to form collaborative teams that go for the larger multi|inter|trans-disciplinary proposals.

GENERAL NOTES TAKEN DURING SESSION

  • Interactive session
  • They come from a large institution, so take the information and use accordingly
  • Centralized office: 3200 people
    • 500 faculty in 3 colleges that make up SS and Humanities
    • They have an Associate VP for Research in Arts, Humanities, and Society
    • Extended their seed funding for specific tracks
  • Added staff to support this college, institutions, and museums
    • One person coordinates these colleges (3) in SS and Humanities (new to this position, only 1.5 years old)
  • Fun fact: their first NEA grant RDS assisted with was from the College of Medicine

Early Career Researchers

  • Be creative in partnerships with Humanities folks
  • Frame research into fundable ideas
  • Ask them “what is your focus” and help them discern how funders will see them
    • Make their ideas relevant and exciting
    • Understand how do they craft a research proposal out of arts and humanities
      • Help them look beyond thinking of “their books” and “their tenure”
      • Help them take their work and apply in “bite-sized chunks” and break it up
        • Difficult with social sciences but can be done

Packaging the Humanities

  • “Time to write your book” is not a fundable concept
  • Find fundable parts within their book [sabbaticals and honorifics]
    • Real life applications
    • How will this impact the human population?
  • Multidisciplinary collaborations
  • External partners
  • Keep a spreadsheet and try to find the connections

Museums as places for “seeing”

  • Museums have to be more than just go see exhibits
    • How do you connect them to the broader spectrum?
    • There is not an entity on campus that could NOT use a museum for their research
      • Example for Humanities? Meeting with the archivist
      • Example: refugee cities, poetry, children to use art for feelings, then art exhibit
      • Example: public engagement
    • Cross the museum with faculty with student engagement à equals working together for a à fundable idea!
  • Ideas
    • Family Day and Meet a Scientist
    • Portal to the Public

Challenges

  • Breaking the tradition; it takes time
  • Understanding the traditional model for getting funding does not look the same anymore
  • Make it applicable
  • Translate their needs to fundable ideas
    • “I need light bulbs!” No, you need specific lighting in order to preserve the documents….etc.

Discussion Topic 1: Challenges

  • Independent brainstorm: Begin completing the challenges section (2 min)
    • Grant getting is so rare and overwhelming that when they do go for large grants, it deters them from trying again.
    • Grantsmanship is not being addressed/motivated by their deans and department chairs
    • From audience:
      • How could you work with large amounts of faculty? (Time management)
      • Working with Humanities faculty, funding rates are low and the grants are extremely What techniques are others using to increase the grant competitiveness?
      • Faculty tell RDs the “let me tell you how it works” in humanities
      • Faculty have no professional development in grantsmanship skills; it’s not what they do
      • Funding is not credited for tenure and promotion
        • No institutional incentive
      • “Us vs Them” mentality with humanities and sciences; they do not want to collaborate
    • Talk to one neighbor: unique, similar? (1 min)
    • Report out to group (6 min)

Discussion Topic 1: Solutions

  • Faculty engagement programs
    • Workshops
      • Homework-have them find funding in Pivot
      • Have them send their potential opps ahead of time, and RDS spends a day sitting down with them and their team to strategize (very successful for their university)
        • Successful consortiums have come out of this
      • Institute-focused programs
      • University initiatives
      • Outcomes: Engage faculty in funding; establish collaborative teams; grow research base and campus connectivity
      • Encourage them: get them applying for smaller ones to get the ball rolling and create momentum
      • Get faculty to cross-talk to other disciplines

Campus community interaction

  • Serve on strategic planning committees
  • Hiring committees
  • Internal funding review committees
  • Becoming part of the community

Leverage campus resources

  • International support office/study abroad office
  • Teaching support center
  • Scientists
    • from Arizona: Arts Engagement Humanities Network (AEHN)
  • Limited submissions
  • Foundation
  • Sponsored projects
  • If you show enthusiasm for them, they will become excited.

Discussion Topic 2: Solutions

  • Independent brainstorm: what are solutions that might work on your campus? (2 min)
  • Talk to your other neighbor (2 min)
  • Report to group (6 min)
  • If you show enthusiasm for them, they will become excited.

Discussion Topic 2: Solutions from group | Summary | Q & A

  • Culture of Research Excellence for Faculty Fellowships (competition)
    • Course release
    • Collaborations have arisen just for being in that fellowship
    • More senior faculty (old and crusties)
      • Have not been expected to go for funding
      • Ask them the gold watch question? How do you want to be talked about when you retire/your legacy?
        • They will be able to tell you their path, then you can go from there
        • Get funding that translates to what they want their legacy to be
      • Sponsored Research Fellows Program
        • Open to any discipline
        • They get paired with an internal mentor, they give them funding for an external reviewer, they get a course release, they work to submit a proposal (the cohort works independently but collaborations can come from that as well)
      • Introduced a Logic Model to the Arts and Sciences folks; it is new to them; it forced them to get clear about their idea (The Ohio State: Kristen Ward’s idea)