Volume XLVI, Number 1 Spring 2015 J Adownload.srainternational.org/journal/archive/JRA... ·...

Volume XLVI, Number 1 Spring 2015

Journal of Research Administration

evisions.com/research(888) 533-5993

Easy to Use. Easy to Launch. Easy to Manage.

AnywhereFocused on Research

Big Picture Views

Save Time andImprove Accuracy

Convenient Low Cost andOn-Time Deployment

ResearchAdministrationMade Easy

Electronic ProposalDevelopment and Submission

Sponsored ProjectLife Cycle Management

Online Protocol Creation,Submission and Management

Journalof

ResearchAdministration

Published by the Society of Research Administrators International

Prepared by Graphic Arts and Publishing Services at The Henry M. Jackson Foundation

for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc.

6720A Rockledge Drive, Suite 100Bethesda, Maryland 20817Rick Crites, Art Director

240-694-2032

1

The Journal of Research Administration, (46)1

Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey N. Joyce

Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences

Deputy Editor Tim Linker

High Point University

2015 Journal Editorial Board

Business Manager Clifford Schofield

Intellectual Property Counsel

J. Michael Slocum

Journal LiaisonJim Mitchell

Ad Hoc Reviewers Melinda CottenWilliam CrawleyAnthony DeLellisKristina DuryeaDarlene GilsonJenny Godley

Anjum JohnCheryl Krause-Parello

Justin MillerJessica Moise

Sandra NordahlErin Sherman

Sally SivraisNancy SpiceErica Swift

Renee VaughanMichelle YoonSteven Ziemba

Deborah Derrick University of Nebraska at Omaha

Ira Goodman University of California San Diego

Tanisha Hammill DOD Hearing Center of Excellence

Kristine Kulage Columbia University Medical Center

Kirsten Levy Boston University Medical Campus

Jeanne Mattern Cleveland Clinic

Camille Nebeker School of Medicine, UC San Diego

Simon Philbin Imperial College London

Marjorie Piechowski University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Pei-Lin Shi The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

Jennifer Taylor University of Arkansas

Nathan L. Vanderford University of Kentucky

Renee J. Vaughan Duke University Medical Center

Cris Wells Arizona State University

Editorial Board Christine Chuani

Moi University College of Health Sciences/Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital

2

The Journal of Research Administration The Journal of Research Administration is published by the Society of Research Administrators International, Falls Church, Virginia 22046 USA. Founded in 1967, the Society of Research Administrators International is dedicated to the education and the professional development of research administrators and to enhance public understanding of research and its administration. Representing all disciplines and sectors in research administration, it serves as the international society to promote quality and innovation in research administration. USPS No. 008245. ISSN No. 1539-1590.

Correspondence Manuscripts are to be submitted to the Editor. Submission of a manuscript is considered to be a representation that it is not copyrighted, previously published, or concurrently under consideration for publishing in print or electronic form. Consult the Journal web page (www.srainternational.org/journal) for specific information for authors, templates, and new material. The preferred communication route is through email at [email protected], Attention: JRA Editor.

Subscriptions Subscriptions: $100 per year in the United States, Canada, and Mexico; $125 per year international. Make checks payable to The Journal of Research Administration. Subscriptions for SRA Members are included in an individual’s annual dues. All subscriptions include electronic access to the two yearly print-editions mailed separately via USPS. Send change-of-address notices (together with your address label) and all other correspondence regarding subscriptions and purchase of back issues to Society of Research Administrators International, Executive Office, 500 N. Washington Street, Suite 300, Falls Church, VA 22046 USA. Phone: +1-703-741-0140. Periodicals are postage paid at Falls Church, VA and at an additional mailing office.

Copyright © 2015 by the Society of Research Administrators International.

All material subject to this copyright may be photocopied for limited non-commercial educational purposes with the written permission of the SRA and with appropriate credit. Opinions expressed in this Journal represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect official policy of either the SRA or the author-affiliated institutions unless so noted in the Author’s Note portion of the specific article. Papers prepared by employees of the U.S. government as part of their official duties may not be copyrighted, but the Journal format is copyrighted and requires written permission of the Society of Research Administrators International, as outlined above. Copying for general distribution, resale, or other purposes may be authorized only with specific written permission from the Society of Research Administrators International. Requests for such permission must be made in writing to the Society of Research Administrators International, 500 N. Washington Street, Suite 300, Falls Church, VA 22046 USA or through email at [email protected].

3


Table of ContentsFrom the Editor’s Desk .............................................................................. 7

Jeffrey Joyce

ArticlesCombating Inhibitors of Quality Research Outputs at the University of Cape Town ............................................................................ 11Charles Akwe Masango Measuring Interactions Among Research Grant Recipients through Social Network Analysis: Insights into Evaluating and Improving Research Collaborations ............................................................................ 25Gary Barron, Heather Scarlett-Ferguson, Cathy Aspen

Key Considerations in Organizing and Structuring University Research ... 41TL Huong Nguyen, Vincent Lynn Meek Responsible Conduct of Research: Not Just for Researchers ................... 63Debra Schaller-Demers

Into the Looking Glass: Psychological Contracts in Research Administration ............................................................................ 77Melanie Hicks, Jorge Monroy-Paz

Considerations for Elementary Schools and University Collaborations:A Guide to Implementing Counseling Research ...................................... 102Joel Muro, Victoria Stickley, Lamar Muro, Pedro Blanco, Mei-Hsiang Tsai

A Multi-Case Study of Research Using Mobile Imaging, Sensing and Tracking Technologies to Objectively Measure Behavior: Ethical Issues and Insights to Guide Responsible Research Practice .................118Camille Nebeker, Rubi Linares-Orozco, Katie Crist

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK

7


Jeffrey N. Joyce, Ph.D.Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences

The Journal of Research Administration (Journal) provides scholarly insights into the best practices of research administration and development of the research enterprise. This issue continues our showcasing of the breadth of our international contributors with contributions from Africa, Australia and Canada. The range of topics is also extensive. Mr. Masango examines in his paper entitled “Combating inhibitors of quality research outputs at the University of Cape Town” the barriers to producing high quality published research and how a program can facilitate that production of scholarly output. Nguyen and Meek take on the formidable task of analyzing organizational structure of research endeavors within academic institutions during the building phase by applying principles of organizational theory in their article “Key considerations in organizing and structuring university research”. There are a number of means to measure the success of capacity building for research; but Barron and co-authors in their contribution “Measuring interactions among research grant recipients through social network analysis: insights into evaluating and improving research collaborations” have utilized social network analysis to measure the degree to which collaborations can be enhanced through specific initiatives. Ms Schaller-Demers contributes in her paper “Responsible conduct of research: not just for researchers” the importance research administrators play in the ethical conduct of research and the framework we need to develop in order to best address courses of action when met with research misconduct. Hicks and Monroy-Paz delve into the research administration workplace through a survey of generational differences in our perspectives of the institution’s obligations. In the paper entitled “Into the looking glass: psychological contracts in research administration” they utilize psychological contracts as a basis to understand generational cohort and specific ideologies in employment. Research can occur in many environments and some of the most difficult to implement occurs with university researchers conducting research in elementary schools. In the paper by Muro and co-authors “Considerations for elementary schools and university collaborations: a guide to implementing counseling research” they provide a step by step approach to ensuring lasting collaborations between institutions can occur, with research that benefits the community, the elementary school and the scholars. The ethical circumstances under which research is conducted is a moving target, and with the continual change in the technologies for surveillance we are faced with difficulties in addressing the ethical standards while supporting research opportunities. Nebeker and co-authors in their paper “A multi-case study of research using mobile imaging, sensing and tracking technologies to objectively measure behavior: ethical issues and insights to guide responsible research practice” address IRB oversight of research utilizing mobile sensing technologies that push our boundaries of protection of human subjects in the environment. Since the first issue of the Journal that I was privileged to serve as Editor, I have recognized the strengths and expertise of our global community. With the hard work of the Editorial Board we have been able to bring to the Journal the expertise of our global community and address a wide

From the Editor’s Desk

8

range of important topics. We have much to learn from each other, and the Journal offers the opportunity to provide to the readership a level of scholarly expertise in our broadening field. I look forward to supporting the next Editor and I wish to remind all of the readers of the Journal that the Editorial Board is committed to helping each author or collaborating authors in the submission of a manuscript. It is your experience, point of view, or analysis of the literature that is important to our entire community.

Please send manuscripts to [email protected]

ARTICLES

11


Combating Inhibitors of Quality Research Outputs at the University of Cape Town

Charles Akwe Masango Research Development Co-ordinatorEmerging Researchers’ ProgrammeDepartment of Research and InnovationUniversity of Cape Town

Abstract: This paper examines the debates about academic scholars’ ability to produce quality research outputs both consistently and frequently. It examines whether it is possible for academic scholars to produce quality research outputs in their respective domains given obstacles that impede scholars to do so. The rationale for this examination stems from the fact that in the academic community, much of a scholar’s reputation depends on the publication of research in journal articles and books. Quality published research outputs enhance a scholar’s status and serve as an important factor in situating where a scholar’s employment will be within the hierarchy of his or her discipline. The paper explores the possible criteria for producing quality research outputs and obstacles that inhibit academic achievement. The paper describes the Emerging Researchers’ Programme (ERP) of the University of Cape Town’s Research Office as a program that facilitates the production of research output while overcoming obstacles to it. At the University of Cape Town, quality research outputs are identified as the number of articles per academic scholar that have appeared in a specific period of time in a set of prestigious journals or research published in professional journals and in conference proceedings; writing of a book or chapter; collection and analysis of original evidence; and mentoring post-graduate students and their dissertations and projects. In South Africa, the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) has identified quality research outputs to be those that appear in a set of prestigious journals or recognized research publications, such as: the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) including Arts and Humanities Citation Index; Science Citation Index Expanded; and Social Sciences Citation Index. Other accredited lists are the approved South African journals and the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS).

Keywords: Scholars, Research Barriers, Emerging Researchers’ Programme, University of Cape Town

Masango

12

Introduction

This paper examines the debates about academic scholars and their ability to produce quality research outputs. One can argue that quality research outputs are the ‘number of articles per [academic scholar] that have appeared in a specific period of time in a set of prestigious journals’ (Hadjinicola & Soteriou, 2006, p. 3), or research published in ‘professional journals and in conference proceedings, writing a book or chapter, gathering and analyzing original evidence, working with post-graduate students on dissertations and … projects’ (Lertputtarak, 2008, p. 19), activities otherwise known as the pursuit of the academic mission. In South Africa, the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) has identified quality research outputs to be those that appear in a set of prestigious journals, or, certain recognized research publications that qualify for subsidy. According to the DHET list, ‘for purposes of subsidy, only DHET-accredited journals are recognised for subsidy’ (University of Cape Town Publication count overview, 2012). These encompass the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) that includes Arts and Humanities Citation Index; Science Citation Index Expanded; and Social Sciences Citation Index. Other accredited lists are the approved South African journals and the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) (University of Cape Town Publication count overview, 2012). It is expected that ‘every academic publish at least 1.25 articles annually in journals’ that the South African Department of Education has accredited (Schulze, 2008, p. 644).

The paper explores whether it is possible for academic scholars to produce quality research outputs in their respective domains, consistently and frequently, despite obstacles that impede scholars to do so. The rationale for the examination stems from the fact that in the academic community, much of a scholar’s reputation depends on the publication of research in journal articles and books. Quality published research outputs enhance a scholar’s status and serve as an important factor in situating where a scholar’s employment will be within the hierarchy of his or her discipline (Eliason, 2008, p. 51), hence an examination of the climate of research output is timely and useful.

In order to explore whether it is possible for academic scholars to produce quality research outputs, the paper first examines the reasons for engaging in the academic enterprise in the first place. Secondly, the paper exposes the obstacles that inhibit the production of quality research outputs. Finally, the paper exposes measures used in the Emerging Researchers’ Programme (ERP) of the University of Cape Town to overcome obstacles to the production of quality research outputs.

Why Write A Paper?

Among the reasons scholars engage in academic pursuits is to claim the moral right of an academic. This is to safeguard the authors ‘personality’ that encompasses the right of attribution of authorship, the right of integrity of authorship and the right against false attribution of authorship. The right of attribution of authorship is to avoid misattribution of one’s work. The right of integrity of authorship and the right against false attribution of authorship of a work are rights of an academic to object to the ‘intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of a work if [the] distortion is likely to harm the author’s reputation, and prevents the destruction of any work

Masango

13


of recognized stature’ (Rosenblatt, 1998). Indeed, within the scope of moral right, an academic is allowed to take certain measures to preserve the integrity of his or her work (Zemer, 2007, p. 37).

Another reason for producing quality academic research outputs is to confer personal benefit. It increases the chances of a salary increase or a promotion. Hadjinicola & Soteriou (2006, p. 1) report that research productivity has a momentous impact on promotions and salary raises. For example, with regard to the former, at the University of Cape Town, academic scholars are given a salary increase based on ‘rate for job’ (RFJ). This means that academic staffs are expected to, among other duties, produce ‘certain levels of publication of peer-reviewed outputs …’ (Minimum performance criteria for academic Rate for Job, 2006). With regard to promotion, Shapiro, Wenger and Shapiro (1994, p. 439) say ‘authorship credit is important to researchers because it helps them gain promotion’. In academia, the more a scholar publishes, the greater are the chances of being promoted in the profession and ‘an inadequate publication record can prevent one from gaining promotion’ (Effendi & Hamber, 2006, p. 113). In fact, non-production of academic output may result in failure to qualify for RFJ or promotion at the University of Cape Town.

The desire to qualify for research grants also can be cited as a reason to write, publish, do research, or teach. The more a scholar publishes the more likely s/he is to gain research grants. According to Shapiro, Wenger and Shapiro (1994, p. 439) ‘authorship credit is important to researchers because it helps them gain … grants’. Dundar & Lewis (1998, p. 608) are of the view that ‘reputation for scholarly excellence can, in turn, result in an increased capacity for attracting research’. In South African tertiary institutions for example, the National Research Foundation (NRF) allocates funding to scholars to pursue research. In order to qualify for such research funding in both the ‘unrated’ and ‘rated’ researchers categories of the NRF, applicants have to show among others ‘consistency of proposed research with previous track record’(Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Tool: Unrated Researchers, 2006; Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Tool: Rated Researchers, 2006). Hence, it can be said that the production of quality research among South African scholars’ increases their chances of gaining NRF and other research grants.

The desire to be known, recognized, and associated with good research output by one’s peers are certainly factors among the reasons. In the academic environment there are certain well-known academics who have gained ‘the approbation of professional societies and their peers’ (Shapiro, Wenger & Shapiro (1994, p. 439). In fact, it is by the production of quality research outputs that academics have gained recognition and exposure. This is irrespective of their academic ranking. Take the example of a professor and a lecturer who are both engaged in a research project. Although it would be natural to assume, based on academic ranking alone, that the professor leads the research project (Hafernik, Messerschmitt & Vandrick, 1997, p. 31), the inclusion of the lecturer’s name associates him or her with the research and qualifies him or her for the benefits to be gained from participation in it.

A final reason for producing quality research outputs is to uphold one’s indirect economic rights. These rights are termed ‘indirect’ because academic authors do not directly acquire any monetary benefits from their ‘natural property right’ that is, from ‘the fruits of their creation’ (Hurt & Schuchman, 1966, p. 421). For example, at the University of Cape Town, academics have a duty to publish in peer-reviewed subsidy-generating journals in order to generate income

Masango

14

for the institution. The subsidy, valued at approximately R119.331, 00, US Dollars 10.1263 since 2010, is awarded by the Department of Education (DoE) to the institution for each published single-authored article (Maritz, personal communication, June 19th, 2012). Authors receive no direct monetary compensation but are encouraged by the institution to continue publishing to sustain the revenue stream. In this regard, it can be argued that the economic rights of authors are associated with the politics of scholarly publishing (Hurt & Schuchman, 1966, p. 422), because it is ‘imposed by the academic community’ (Hafernik, Messerschmitt & Vandrick, 1997, p. 31).

Possible Factors Inhibiting Production of Quality Research Output

Among the factors inhibiting the production of quality research outputs is the lack of research ‘planning guidance’ (Greed, 2005, p. 725), that formulates, assesses, clarifies, structures, and establishes objectives and results of research (National Institute for Educational Policy Research, 2011). According to Person (1940, p. 65), planning encompasses the design of a structure of procedures whereby the objectives of research are accurately attained with ‘minimum waste of the energies employed, and in most instances giving initial direction to execution’. In fact, it could be said that the absence of research planning guidance is tantamount to ensuring that no structure ever will exist to direct researchers to achieve quality research outputs.

The lack of commitment to pursue research is a factor that may inhibit the production of quality research outputs. According to Archambault (2004, p. 2), many diverse factors can motivate commitment. Among them are the involvement of a strong person(s) or role model(s) (Ridpath et al., 2007, p. 59), who are ‘top-quality professors’ (Altbach, 2004) pursuing quality research and have evidence of previous quality research experience (Ledley & Lovejoy, 1993, p. 436). A role model has the potential to encourage emerging researchers to engage in research, first, and then to seek excellence in the writing. Role models are ‘individuals admired for their ways of being and acting as professionals’ (Kutob, Senf & Campos-Outcalt, 2006, p. 244). In addition, they are contacts for research guidance and serve as positive persons to emulate in many ways: personality, skills, track record, and competence. Gelso (1993, p. 468) is of the view that personality and training level affects research attitudes and productivity. According to Kutob, Senf & Campos-Outcalt (2006, p. 244), role models moderate negative stereotypes as they have the wit to craft explicitly the value of what is being researched. In the absence of a role model to encourage emerging scholars to commit to research it may be difficult for scholars to produce quality research outputs.

The lack of appropriate research knowledge may inhibit the production of quality research outputs. Universities are expected to play a vital function in society as producers and transmitters of knowledge (D’Este & Patel, 2007, p. 1296). They have highly-qualified manpower equipped with research skills. Lee (1996, p. 845) says that ‘universities command enormous scientific and technological resources’ acquired from their qualified research-skilled manpower. In instances in which institutions are deficient in trained manpower to pilot multiple research tasks, such as doing fieldwork, inputting, and analyzing data (Cua, Mckone & Schroeder, 2001, p. 676), they are failing in their basic duties to serve knowledge. At these institutions, academic scholars are not able to produce quality research outputs. Furthermore, the lack of fulfillment of research tasks

Masango

15


causes harm to society (Riechi, 2008). Rasouliazar & Fealy (2012, p. 832) say that ‘knowledge is based on research’ and research ‘pushes the frontiers of knowledge’ and ‘knowledge and competences are embodied in people’ (Cox & Verbeek, 2009, p. 6). Universities must engage in research tasks for engagement in these tasks achieves a ‘research-oriented culture’ (Dundar & Lewis, 1998, p. 610) that oversees the management of time and resources to improve research.

The lack of adequate university funding inhibits the production of quality research outputs. For example, at the University of Cape Town in 2014, research activities within the Emerging Researchers’ Programme, mainly Writers’ Workshops (see below), decreased from 21 workshops in 2013 to 12 in 2014 due to lack of external funding. When adequate funding is compromised, universities may be ‘asked to pay for an increasing part of their budgets through tuition and student fees, funds raised by consulting and selling research-based products’ (Altbach, 2004). In such a scenario, there is a corresponding decrease in research support activity, which negatively affects the production of quality research outputs. It is reported that academics in institutions that provide adequate funding to support research are likely to be more productive in research outputs than academics in institutions that do not provide adequate funding for research (Harman, 2001, p. 245).

Finally, the lack of research facilities, or disruption in existing facilities (Rasouliazar & Fealy, 2012, p. 833), can deter research production. Research facilities encompass appropriate libraries, laboratories, offices, internet and other electronic resources. These facilities, according to Altbach, (2004), are responsible for the expansion of science and scholarship. The internet provides a rapid, worldwide dissemination of information to a much ‘larger audience than in the past’ (Peters, 2008) and connects scholars across space and time (Harloe & Budd, 1994, p. 83), at great benefit to researchers and the overall knowledge base, but at great infrastructure cost. Institutions must maintain their facilities notwithstanding economic downturns and shrinking state allocations to tertiary institutions (Goldstein & Caruso, 2004, p. 1) that may compel state or provincial governments to reduce their number. This happened in South Africa, for example, as the institutional landscape was altered dramatically by the merger of several higher education institutions due to a negative financial situation (Hay & Fourie, 2002, p. 115), among other factors.

University of Cape Town’s Efforts to Overcome Inhibitors of Quality Research Output

At the University of Cape Town, the sectors that have had the most success in overcoming the inhibitors of quality research outputs are its faculties, research facilities, and most importantly, its Research Office’s Emerging Researchers’ Programme (ERP). ERP is charged with increasing the country’s number of researchers. The program also aims to change the demographics of researchers in South Africa by developing more women and black researchers (De Gruchy & Holness, 2007, p. v). ERP was established to redress a national situation characterized by an aging population of researchers who were producing the majority of the country’s research output (De Gruchy & Holness, 2007, p. viii), and who were not being replaced by a younger cohort. By increasing the number of its researchers (De Gruchy & Holness, 2007, p. v) UCT envisioned ERP as a way to strengthen its overall research capacity.

Masango

16

The program was launched in February 2003. It is staffed by four coordinators and several Senior Research Scholars (SRS) (De Gruchy & Holness, 2007, p. vii-viii). The four coordinators have PhDs, publish in their respective domains, and are experienced in recognition of the research needs of emerging academics. The SRS are retired professors with internal National Research Foundation university ratings of “A” and “B” (Ratings landmarks for UCT, 2013) who are aware of the ‘width, multidimensionality and complexity of researcher development’ (Evans, 2013, p. 423), arising from their extensive and productive publication record. An “A” rated researcher with the South African National Foundation is one who is unequivocally recognised by their peers as leading international scholar in his or her ‘field for the high quality and impact of their recent research outputs’. A “B” rated researcher is one ‘who enjoy considerable international recognition by their peers for the high quality and impact of their recent research outputs’ (National Research Foundation, 2014).

The coordinators’ duties involve identifying scholars at UCT who are ‘new’ or ‘emerging’ academics, those with little or no publication record, and encouraging them to attend seminars and workshops organized under the auspices of the program. The SRS, given their more senior status as professors (Dundar & Lewis, 1998, p. 610), deliver seminars and facilitate workshops which are administered and coordinated by the coordinators. ERP support ranged from single interviews with the coordinators, to attendance of many workshops and seminars, to individual mentoring sessions with the SRS.

Table 1 shows the rapid growth in utilization of ERP since its inception in 2003 with an original cohort of 45 academics. By the end of 2012, 548 UCT academics had received some form of quality support from the program. One of the hallmarks of the program was to target emerging academics at a prime teachable moment early in their research careers to help them advance their academic standing (De Gruchy & Holness, 2007, p. v). The data shown in Table 1, in each year of

Table 1. Comparative Faculty Representation (2003 -2012)

CHED COM EBE HSC HUM LAW FSC TOTAL

2003 10 4 11 6 8 3 3 452004 10 10 17 16 24 8 17 1022005 22 17 27 31 35 13 26 1712006 29 32 26 32 42 14 29 2042007 33 43 28 51 47 18 42 2622008 35 52 34 54 43 20 51 2892009 35 62 50 83 53 25 56 3642010 35 69 56 107 71 24 70 4322011 38 82 63 121 84 27 77 4922012 40 90 72 142 97 31 76 548

ERP comparative faculty representation, i.e., Centre for Higher Education Development (CHED); Faculty of Commerce (COM); Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment (EBE); Faculty of Health Sciences (HSC); Faculty of Humanities (HUM); Faculty of Law (LAW); Faculty of Science (FSC)

Masango

17


the program the faculty participants held junior rank of lecturer or senior lecturer (equivalent to assistant professor in United States education system), attesting to ERP’s focus on development of emerging researchers. The participants were from all the seven faculties of the institution and their participation is voluntary and confidential.

ERP Coordinators

Before the single interview with a coordinator is conducted the emerging researcher is requested to provide in advance a copy of his or her curriculum vitae to give an idea of where the emerging researcher is in terms of research. During the interview the researcher shares personal issues relating to research dynamics that might be hindering their research progress, such as lack of enough time for research. As a solution, the coordinator advises the researchers of relevant content offered in seminars taught by the SRS. The coordinator also may probe the researcher to see if s/he would like to attend a seminar or take the matter further. The initial interview is followed up with emails, phone calls, and/or subsequent meetings, along with the request that the coordinator be informed of any developments relating to research. These could encompass, for example, ‘PhD registration and graduation, a successful funding application, or acceptance of an article for publication’ (De Gruchy & Holness, 2007, p.15-17).

ERP Seminars and Workshops

ERP seminars and workshops address a variety of issues. Research planning, for example, assists the emerging scholars with how to plan their research and how to commit to a research career. SRS discuss how emerging scholars should devote daily committed time, approximately twenty minutes a day, for academic writing. The emerging scholars hear that when this is done on a daily basis, it becomes a routine that would influence their attitudes, viewpoints, knowledge, understanding, and skills (Evans, 2013, p 426) and negates the oft-cited complaint of ‘lack of time for research based on too much teaching commitments and administrative overload’ (Schulze, 2008, p. 657). Furthermore SRS advise the seminar participants to have more than one article in progress at any one time. This practice solidifies the daily writing routine and, gives them something to fall back on once they have finished a particular paper. Research guidance provided by an infrastructure with efficient staff (Schulze, 2008, p. 656), is plainly in evidence in the management of these seminars. The emerging scholars use the seminars to model SRS research guidance in their own research planning.

The problem of lack of appropriate research knowledge is another topic addressed in seminars. Participants are guided as to what constitutes a good research paper. They are encouraged to consult directly with the SRS to improve their own research papers (Hadjinicola & Soteriou, 2006, p. 3). Seminar guidance encompasses searching the relevant literature using search engines, the prerequisites of an academic paper, and academic journal publication requirements. The discussion of academic papers entails what the paper intends to explore, the research question, the rationale for the research question, and the contribution the paper intends to bring to the debate under investigation.

Some departments hold annual Writers Workshops to facilitate the writing of research papers. These are financed by the Research Office and coordinated by the Research Office coordinators.

Masango

18

The workshop is an additional commitment by participants to research. It commits academics to get their articles in shape for publication. The Writers’ Workshop brings together all ranks of academics – from lecturers to professors – in the department. As ‘research performance is likely to increase as a result of greater interaction between department members’ (Dundar & Lewis, 1998, p. 611), the workshop provides a necessary environment. The workshop also increases productivity by bringing together the senior and junior ranks of the department. Hadjinicola & Soteriou, (2006, p. 3) are of the view that ‘seniority has also been shown to be a factor leading to higher research productivity’. To take better advantage of the workshop, each participant prepares a draft article which is circulated to the entire group of about 14 participants prior to the meeting. Each participant is allocated one article for which to prepare a response in advance, and three other articles preferably in cognate areas to read. Each participant attempts to identify an appropriate peer-reviewed journal for the article, and acquaints him/herself with the publication requirements of the journal.

At the workshop, each participant is accorded a 45-minute slot for discussion of his/her paper. The presentation takes approximately 20 minutes, followed by the response and plenary discussion. A block of time, several hours, is allocated for participants to implement recommendations made during the sessions, once all the presentations have been made. For this purpose, participants are encouraged to bring laptops or to make use of the computer facilities at the conference venue.

After the workshop, participants are asked to ensure submission of their articles to accredited journals within three months of the workshop. This is monitored by an internal faculty or departmental coordinator in liaison with the relevant research development coordinator. At the end of the workshop participants are requested to evaluate the workshop. The evaluations guide the research development coordinator as to what should be improved upon in future workshops.

The topic of funding opportunities is covered in ERP seminars and workshops (Dundar & Lewis, 1998, p. 612). Participants are guided as to where they can get funding for their research and benefit from the expertise of the SRS who have funding track records. The workshops cover both local and international funding. For researchers who desire to gain access to funding at the international level, ERP offers training on how to apply and compete for international funding.

To provide a broader foundation for research funding ERP has opened up its training to include new funding opportunities such as Research Professional Africa (RPA). The RPA is an online platform that allows UCT ‘researchers access to the latest global coverage of research funding programmes’ (Bond, 2012), as it covers a complete variety of research disciplines and sponsors. Within the RPA, subscribed ‘members can search for funding opportunities in their fields of interest, see what founders are calling for, refer research opportunities to their colleagues and receive email alerts’ (Bond, 2012).

ERP’s Individual Mentoring with SRS

After the single interviews and the seminars and workshops, the third resource provided by ERP is individual mentoring sessions with SRS. Emerging scholars receive expert one-on-one guidance from SRS who are used in the program as role models, deployed uniquely to encourage emerging scholars to engage in research activities. Through the seminars, workshops and one-to

Masango

19


one mentoring the SRS have been able to change negative viewpoints, mind-sets and perceptions (Evans, 2013, p. 423) of emerging scholars by implanting appropriate research knowledge. UCT’s academics do not adhere to the notion that ‘a publication is a publication’ (Sauer, 1988, p. 857). They produce quality research outputs following the practices put in place by the university to assist and facilitate their research process.

UCT Research Administration and Facilities

The University of Cape Town has several internal and external funding opportunities for scholars. The funding opportunities are administered by UCT committees that oversee the functioning of the funding. Internal funding includes ‘start up grants’ for newly recruited academics; University Research Council (URC) funding for conferences; visiting scholars grants; as well as short-term research visit grants. External funding includes the National Research Foundation (NRF) funding. Some of these opportunities allow academics to buy off teaching related matters in order to concentrate on research as ‘prolific researchers spend … less time on teaching-related activities’ (Hadjinicola & Soteriou, 2006, p. 3). The university accepts this situation because it wants to provide more support for research (Dundar & Lewis, 1998, p. 613).

UCT supports research in the form of libraries, laboratories, offices, internet and other electronic resources in order to enhance the production of quality research outputs. The institution provides well-equipped offices for all its academics. All academic offices have personal computers that are fully connected onto the network. Also, the institution has well-equipped laboratories for scholars in the basic sciences. The institution has a main library, the Chancellor Oppenheimer Library, and nine departmental libraries situated on UCT’s various campuses (http://www.lib.uct.ac.za/about-the-libraries) that are well-resourced. The main library has a collection of ‘more than 1.2 million volumes, including a number of special collections. The Libraries’ journal holdings consist of over 72,000 e-journal titles and more than 28,500 print journal titles’. Furthermore, the main library has well-equipped electronic resources in addition to its print materials, with some materials in both print and electronic format. The main university library subscribes to approximately 190 electronic databases with 38,000 items of resources in audiovisual and other formats. The main library also provides facilities such as special study rooms, in the Research Wing, designated for academics and postgraduate students to carry out their research. By the size of the library, number of books and journals, and the use of technology (Dundar & Lewis, 1998, p. 613-614) it can be seen that UCT values research performance. Corroborating this view, Hadjinicola & Soteriou (2006: 3) are of the opinion that ‘better library facilities further promote research productivity of researchers in terms of the number of articles and their quality’.

Taken together the ERP training series, hiring of dedicated staff, appointment of designated university research administration committees, availability of online platforms, and extensive research facilities are notable and indispensable UCT research resources. Hadjinicola & Soteriou (2006, p. 3) are of the view that ‘the presence of a research center focusing on how to apply and administer internal and external funding increases research productivity and quality of articles’. These examples of UCT research capacity have helped to place UCT among the best in the world and the best in Africa (Ranking Web of World Universities, 2012).

Masango

20

Conclusion

For academics to engage in the many tasks that comprise the academic mission, it is necessary that institutions provide all necessary support and infrastructure of the types described here. UCT’s ERP program accomplishes much of what is valued in research resources and infrastructure. In establishing the ERP program UCT has been able to build its research capacity, overcome traditional inhibitors of academic advancement, and redress a national crisis in research competitiveness, with lessons that can be learned by other institutions.

Acknowledgement

The author is indebted to all the colleagues in the Research Office, University of Cape Town, who have contributed to the success of the Emerging Researcher Programme, upon which this paper is based. Among these are Danie Visser, Marilet Sienaert, Christina Pather, Lyn Holness, Dianne Bond, Gaelle Ramon, Mignonne Breier, Robert Morrell, Roshan Sonday, Thando Mgqolozana, Judith Rix, John W. de Gruchy, and Luigi Nassimbeni. Special thanks to Kirsten Levy for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. This article was based on a poster presentation at the International Network of Research Management Societies (INORMS) Conference – 10-13 April 2014, Washington D.C.

Charles Akwe MasangoResearch Development Co-ordinatorEmerging Researchers’ ProgrammeDepartment of Research and InnovationUniversity of Cape TownResearch Development, Research Office, PBag 3, Rondebosch, 7701, Allan Cormack Hse, 2 Rhodes Avenue, Mowbray, University of Cape Town, South Africa.Telephone: +27 (0) 21 650 5128Fax: +27 (0) 21 650 [email protected] concerning this article should be address to the author.

Masango

21


References

Altbach, P. G. (2004). The costs and benefits of world-class universities. The new academic labor systems. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://bcct.unam.mx/adriana/bibliografia%20parte%202/ALTBACH,%20P.pdf

Archambault, S. (2004). Factors promoting or inhibiting the integration of ecologically modern principles into the Ugandan agriculture industry. Uganda journal of agricultural sciences, 9: 1-6. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.unm.edu/~sarchamb/Publications/ecologically.pdf

Bond, D. [email protected] 2012. Research Professional Africa [Personal e-mail, 17 August] to [email protected]

Centre for academic success study guides: writing. (2011). Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://library.bcu.ac.uk/learner/writingguides/1.07.htm

Cox, D. & Verbeek, A. (2009). Evidence on the main factors inhibiting mobility and career development of researchers. Final report, European Commission: Directorate-General for Research, Directorate C – European Research Area. 1-130. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.cied.uminho.pt/uploads/rindicate_final_report_2008_11_june_08_v4[1].pdf

Cua, K. O., Mckone, K. E. & Schroeder, R. G. (2001). Relationship between implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance. Journal of operations management. 19: 675 – 694. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272696301000663

De Gruchy, J. W. & Holness, L. (2007). The emerging researcher: nurturing passion, developing skills, producing output. Lansdowne, Cape Town: Juta.

D’Este, P. & Patel, P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36: 1295 – 1313.

Dundar, H. & Lewis, D. R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 39(6): 607 – 631.

Effendi, K. & Hamber, B. (2006). Publish or perish: disseminating your research findings. In Research in practice: applied methods for the social sciences. Edited by Martin Terre Blanche, Kevin Durrheim & Desmond Painter. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press. 112-128.

Eliason, S. L. (2008). The publish or perish imperative: Some polemical observations on the sociological research enterprise. Sociological Viewpoints. 51 – 60. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.pasocsociety.org/ARTICLE4-eliason.pdf

Masango

22

Evans, L. (2013). Leadership for researcher development: what research leaders need to know and understand. Educational management administration & leadership, 40(4): 423-435.

Gelso, C. J. (1993). On the making of a scientist practioner: A theory of research training in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 24(4): 468 – 476.

Goldstein, P. J. & Caruso, J. B. (2004). Information technology funding in higher education. Educause center for applied research. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0407/ecm0407.pdf

Greed, C. (2005). Overcoming the factors inhibiting the mainstreaming of gender into spatial planning policy in the United Kingdom. Urban studies, Vol. 42(4): 719 – 749.

Hadjinicola, G. C. & Soteriou, A. C. (2006). Factors affecting research productivity of production and operations management groups: An empirical study. Journal of applied mathematics and decision sciences, Vol. 2006: 1-16. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ads/2006/096542/abs/

Hafernik, J. J.; Messerschmitt, D. S. & Vandrick, S. (1997). Collaborative research: why and how. Educational researcher, Vol. 26, No. 9, (Dec., 1997), pp. 31-35. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/117627

Harloe, B. & Budd, J.M. (1994). Collection development and scholarly communication in the era of electronic access. Journal of academic librarianship, Vol. 20(2): 83 - 87.

Harman, G. (2001). University – industry research partnerships in Australia: extent, benefits and risks. Higher education research and development, Vol. 20(3): 245 – 264. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07294360120108340

Hay, D. & Fourie, M. (2002). Preparing the way for mergers in South African higher and further education institutions: An investigation into staff perceptions. Higher Education, 44: 115 – 131.

Hurt, R. M. & Schuchman, R. M. (1966). The economic rationale of copyright. The American Economic Review, Vo. 56, No. ½ (Mar. 1, 1966), pp. 421 – 432. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282(196603)56%3A1%2F2%3C421%3ATEROC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

Kutob, R. M., Senf, J. H. & Campos-Outcalt. (2006). The diverse functions of role models across primary care specialties. Medical student education, Vol. 38(4): 244 – 251. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.stfm.org/fmhub/fm2006/april/randa244.pdf

Masango

23


Lee, Y. S. (1996). Technology transfer and the research university: a search for boundaries of university – industry collaboration. Research policy, 25: 843 – 863. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/technology-transfer-and-the-research-university-a-search-for-the-4f UKdzihCO

Ledley, F.D. & Lovejoy, F.H. Jr. (1993). Factors influencing the interest, career paths, and research activities of recent graduates from an academic, pediatric residency program. Pediatrics, 92(3): 436 – 41. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8361799

Lertputtarak, S. (2008). An investigation of factors related to research productivity in a public university in Thailand: A case study. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://vuir.vu.edu.au/1459/1/Lertputtarak.pdf

Minimum performance criteria for academic Rate for Job. (2006). Retrieved June 18, 2012, from http://rfjcriteria.doc

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Tool: Rated Researchers. (2006). Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://evaluation.nrf.ac.za/Content/Documents/MCDM/2006_mcdm_tool_rated_researchers_26june.doc

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Tool: Unrated Researchers. (2006). Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://evaluation.nrf.ac.za/Content/Documents/MCDM/2006_mcdm_tool_unrated_researchers_26june.doc

National Institute for Educational Policy Research. (2011). Outline of research and programs. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.nier.go.jp/English/departments/menu_10.html

National Research Foundation. (2014). Definition of rating categories. Retrieved March 05, 2015, from http://www.nrf.ac.za/sites/default/files/documents/Rating%20Categories%202014.pdf

Person, H.S. (1940). Research and planning as functions of administration and management. Public Administration Review, Vol. 1(1): 65 – 73. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/972579

Peters, M. (2008). The challenge of copyright in the digital age: How copyright law should respond to technological change. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.america.gov/st/econ-english/2008/April/20080429222342myleen7.736933e-02.html

Ranking Web of World Universities. (2012). Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.webometrics.info/en/Ranking_africa

Masango

24

Rasouliazar, S. & Fealy, S. (2012). Study the inhibit factors in academic research from viewpoint of agriculture and natural resources colleges faculty members in West Azerbaijan Province, Iran. World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 17(7): 832 – 837. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://idosi.org/wasj/wasj17(7)12/6.pdf

Ratings landmarks for UCT. 2013. Monday Paper, Vol. 32.04. Retrieved October 31, 2014, from http://www.researchoffice.uct.ac.za/print/news/archives/?id=9517&t=mp

Ridpath, B. D. et al. (2007). Factors that influence the academic performance of NCAA division 1 athletes. The SMART journal, Vol. 4(1): 59 – 83. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.thesmartjournal.com/factors.pdf

Riechi, A.R.O. (2008). Demand for academic programmes offered in Kenya’s public universities and their relevance to the labour market. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.csae.ox.ac.uk/conferences/2008-EDiA/papers/265-Riechi.pdf

Rosenblatt, B. (1998). Moral rights basics. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html

Sauer, R. D. (1988). Estimates of the returns to quality and coauthorship in economic academia. The journal of political economy, Vol. 96, No.4 (August, 1988), pp 855-866. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1830477

Schulze, S. (2008). Academic research at a South African higher education institution: Quality issues. SAJHE 22(3): 629-643. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/192/ar_schulze_academicresearch.pdf ?sequence=1

Shapiro, D. W., Wenger, N. S. & Shapiro, M. F. (1994). The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. In The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 271(6), 9 February 1994, pp 438-442 Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://users.ece.gatech.edu/rbutera/rcr/JAMA1994.pdf

University of Cape Town Publication count overview. (2012). Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.researchoffice.uct.ac.za/publication_count/overview/

Wong, P. T.P. [n.d.]. How to write a research proposal. International network on personal meaning. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.meaning.ca/archives/archive/art_how_to_write_P_Wong.htm

Zemer, L. (2007). The idea of authorship in copyright. Great Britain: MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall.

Masango

25


Barron, Scarlett-Ferguson, Aspen

Measuring Interactions Among Research Grant Recipients through Social Network Analysis: Insights into Evaluating and Improving Research Collaborations

Gary RS Barron University of Alberta

Heather Scarlett-Ferguson Alberta Health Services, Addiction & Mental Health

Cathy Aspen Alberta Health Services, Addiction & Mental Health

Abstract: Alberta Health Services (AHS) was awarded a grant from the Alberta Ministry of Human Services to promote applied mental health research within areas of interest to the Ministry. The grant funded the Collaborative Research Grant Initiative: Mental Wellness in Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (CRGI), designed to collaboratively generate knowledge to improve the effectiveness of programs, services, and supports for the mental health needs of seniors and adults with disabilities. CRGI researchers received support via workshops that provided grant process information and basic research instruction, as well as an annual conference to share research results and network with each other. We used social network analysis to assess whether CRGI objectives regarding collaboration were achieved and to provide examples of possible future strategic planning. A survey of grant recipients with questions addressing collaboration before and after CRGI events was also completed. Awareness among grant recipients increased drastically from before and after the CRGI. Information workshops and the conference both provided successful support and increased awareness of ongoing work among grant recipients.

Keywords: Social network analysis, collaboration support, knowledge exchange, research grant evaluation

Introduction

This project aimed to assess how a major collaborative research grant initiative affected interactions among grant recipients. The Collaborative Research Grant Initiative: Mental Wellness in Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (CRGI) was funded by a grant awarded by the Alberta Minister of Human Services to Alberta Health Services-Addiction & Mental Health. The CRGI had two main goals. First, it funded both academic and practitioner-driven research designed to assist individuals living with a mental illness and disabilities to maximize their independence in the community. In addition, the CRGI was meant to increase awareness of Alberta-based research, and foster collaboration and knowledge exchange, among policy makers, researchers, and community agencies. Developing research collaborations across multiple organizations,

26

disciplines, and locations is a complex challenge and requires significant support (Craven & Bland, 2006). Researchers have argued that we must demonstrate effective knowledge exchange practices in order to better understand what forms of support are effective under real world conditions (Norman & Huerta, 2006).

The CRGI steering committee agreed that a first step toward enhancing collaboration within Alberta was to increase awareness among practitioners and researchers in the mental health field. Several information sessions and knowledge exchange events were held to support potential research grant applicants through the CRGI application process, to encourage collaboration, and to disseminate research results. Activities important to the Ministry included capacity building within community agencies funded by the Ministry; capacity building within the Ministry itself; and multi-sectoral collaboration. The CRGI steering committee also decided to evaluate the effectiveness of the workshops using social network analysis. This paper focuses on the social network analysis results, based on data collected from 26 CRGI participants who were surveyed. The project aimed to assess effects of the CRGI on collaboration between grant recipients and their knowledge of one another’s work. Therefore we also aimed to illustrate which components of the CRGI were affective in achieving the Ministry’s goals. The survey asked grant recipients for demographic information, through which CRGI activities they had met, and about their collaborative activities with one another before and after winning a CRGI grant and engaging in related events. We include information regarding support activities below and further details regarding the grants, projects awarded funding, and the activities that were undertaken to support their collaboration are available at the Alberta Addiction & Mental Health Research Partnership Program website (http://www.mentalhealthresearch.ca).

Social Network Analysis

Social network analysis (SNA) is the study of the structure of relations between actors, people, or organizations who have the capacity to take action (Wasserman & Faust, 1994; Scott, 2000). Key SNA principles include: actors are interdependent; resources such as information can be transferred between actors via the nature of their relationships; the form that relationships take between actors can limit or enable the capacity for individual action and; models of networks—their structure—are considered as regularly occurring patterns of relationships between actors within a network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). In SNA, structure is often illustrated using sociograms or graphs where points (typically actors) are connected by lines (relations) (Scott, 2000). In other words, a sociogram is a graph that represents the people within a social structure and their connections to their peers. These graphs can be effective in visualizing what a network looks like by allowing relations to become visually observable in situations where the observation is typically theoretical or ephemeral.

Social network analysis is a useful means to examine interdisciplinary collaboration (Stokols et al., 2003; Godley, Barron, & Sharma, 2011; Godley, Sharkey, & Weiss, 2013). For example, a comparison of individual attributes and network structure can provide valuable information regarding changes in interdisciplinary cooperation over time (Aboelela, Merrill, Carley, & Larson, 2007). Social network analysis can also be applied to facilitate collaborative innovation and


27


knowledge exchange by elucidating structure and qualities of collaborator networks (Hargadon, 2002), examining how particular characteristics of collaborations affect performance (Thomas-Hunt, Ogden, & Neale, 2003), or revealing forms of collaboration between actors most likely to be productive and maintained (Provan, Harvey, Guernsey de Zapien, 2005; Long, Cunningham, Wiley, Carswell, & Braithwaite, 2013).

For example, Aboelela et al. (2007) used SNA to evaluate a Centre for Interdisciplinary Research on Antimicrobial Resistance (CIRAR). They designed questionnaires to ask participants about their knowledge of others involved in the collaboration, as well as the types of work they engaged in with each other. Surveys were administered at the beginning of the group’s formation and at 6 and 12 months afterward. By examining changes in disciplinary network composition over time, Aboelela et al. (2007) were able to determine whether the goal of facilitating interdisciplinary research was accomplished. Results demonstrated that after one year of CIRAR’s existence, the network ceased to be dominated by participants from medicine and nursing and became composed of a variety of other disciplines. Aboelela et al. (2007) found that the most productive network members were highly connected to others and positioned between many others (bridges), making them potentially good facilitators for the transfer of information and building new connections.

While there have been a number of studies identifying leadership in networks (Long, et al., 2013), exchange of specific information (Wensing, Lieshout, Koetsenruiter, & Reeves, 2010), or implementation of specific evidence based practices (Palinkas, et al., 2011), this current project provides evidence of effective support for enhancing awareness as a first step in building connections between otherwise isolated potential collaborators. As such, this paper provides useful insights for major research grant evaluation, knowledge exchange, and collaboration building practices. We assess CRGI member connectedness and awareness before the CRGI, determine which of the CRGI activities were effective at enhancing awareness of research among CRGI research grant recipients (if any), and describe what changes in networks occurred in relation to the CRGI. The research questions we used to guide this process are: 1) How well integrated were CRGI network members prior to the CRGI-related activities?; 2) Did CRGI activities affect integration?; 3) What changes in relationships among network members occurred after CRGI related activities?

Research Methods

In order to examine the links and relationships between members of a bounded population it is important to survey as complete a network as possible (Heath, Fuller, & Johnston, 2009). Missing responses from central or influential members of a social network can result in a distorted representation (Quatman & Chelladurai, 2008). Hence, SNA research generally does not employ random sampling (Quatman and Chelladurai (p. 348, 2008). We used purposive sampling in our surveys to ensure that all grant recipients possessed the required characteristics for the purposes of our study (Cohen, Lawrence & Morrison, 2007). Survey data are typically used for SNA and have been found to produce reliable results (Marsden, 1990).

Within the CRGI there were 37 research grant recipients. Three grant recipients were excluded from this study due to illness, maternity leave, or retirement. This is not a detrimental flaw, since


28

our goal was to evaluate CRGI activities for all active grant recipients. Of those 34 individuals, 27 research grant recipients provided consent to participate in the study. One person who consented subsequently did not respond, leaving us with 26 study participants and a response rate of 76.5%. Our response rate is considered acceptable for SNA and is high enough to limit effects of missing data (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Moreover, we tracked which grant recipients participated in our study and to our knowledge no particularly influential or central research grant recipients did not participate. Half of the study participants were male and half were female. They were generally aged 40 or older, with the majority being primarily involved in mental health as researchers, academics, or service providers. See Table 1 for the full demographic profile of participants.

Network studies with a small sample size run the risk that study participants can be identified when attributes are included because readers can combine relationships illustrated in sociograms with attribute data and publicly available information (e.g., via websites). We mitigated this problem by including attribute data in the aggregate in our tables, and only illustrating gender and career stream within mental health related work. We did not identify the specific organization with which our participants are affiliated. Study participants were informed of the risks associated with participation in this study and ethics approval was obtained from the former Community Research and Ethics Board of Alberta (CREBA).

Study participants are located throughout the province of Alberta and are familiar with electronic communication with the grant administrators. Because of participant’s geographically distributed work it was practical to conduct an online survey. Participants were asked to indicate their relationship with each of the other research grant recipients out of a possible number of 27 (see Appendix A). Four levels of relationship were examined, whether he/she had heard of, knew the work of, had worked with, or had met with others. Respondents who indicated that they had met or collaborated with another grant recipient were prompted to specify how and a list of options were provided. Options for how they had met included: CRGI information sessions and workshops or an annual knowledge exchange conference. Options for whether they had collaborated included: whether they co-authored a paper, co-presented at a conference, shared knowledge, or won a

Table 1. Grant Recipient Demographics

Characteristic Frequency (%)Gender

Male 13 (50%)Female 13 (50%)

Age29 years or younger 0 (0%)30-39 years 3 (12%)40-49 years 6 (14%)50-59 years 10 (40%)60 years or younger 6 (24%)

Primarily involved in mental health work asResearcher 14 (54%)Administrator 1 (4%)Service Provider 8 (31%)Policy/Decision Maker 1 (3%)Others (Manager, Quality Practice Lead)

2 (8%)

AffiliationCommunity Agency 7 (33%)Academic 14 (67%)


29


grant together. The survey was administered before the final CRGI event, but grant recipients were asked questions related to relationships with fellow CRGI researchers both before as well as after the CRGI events were completed. There were additional events that were held later in the CRGI program, but a number of major events were completed within the scope of this current project. We acknowledge this limitation and further discuss it in the limitations section. Because of the short time interval from the CRGI events to the questionnaire forgetting of “before” and “after” relationships and cross contamination was minimized. Marin (2004) found that network survey respondents are more likely to effectively remember connections with individuals when they have had more types of relationships, and when they have known one another for longer periods of time. Participants who knew one another from “before” the CRGI are likely to have had longer lasting relationships and be more memorable to one another. Whereas respondents who met “after”—through the CRGI—had their memories reinforced by significant events such as: attending the CRGI workshops, winning the grant competitions, and attending the annual conference with its various networking events. Moreover, because our survey was with a whole network each respondent did not have to generate names through a free recall task, but were given a list of all possible names for each network question. All of these characteristics of our study contribute to confidence that respondent memory is not a confounding factor in our study. Respondents were also asked to identify how they were primarily involved in mental health work (see Table 1 above for participant demographics). In order to track who had completed the survey, grant recipients were also asked to report their gender, age, and name.

Once data were collected they were exported from the online survey software and imported into UCINET for analysis (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002). UCINET is software that was developed specifically for the purpose of analyzing network data. We used UCINET to examine density, degree, and isolates, a form of descriptive analysis that does not typically integrate common statistical procedures such as tests of significance. However, we also used UCINET to compare the differences in density before and after involvement in CRGI activities and events. UCINET uses a bootstrapping procedure to take multiple samples (5,000) from the data and then calculate a classical t-test of significance. This procedure is useful for determining changes in density among the same set of actors for the same set of relations over time. UCINET is also fully integrated with NetDraw software for visualizing networks. This allowed us to visually analyze graphs for patterns and changes in networks and to use these visualizations to reflect on post-evaluation strategic action. We did not consider direction of ties in our analysis, as some other SNA studies have done, because our focus was on the overall increase in ties for those who took part in CRGI activities.

Results

Our first research question asked how well integrated CRGI network members were prior to CRGI related activities. To answer this question we examined the degree of overall relations in the network before the CRGI by looking at degree, isolates, and density of the network. These measures are illustrated in Table 2 for the ties “have heard of ”, “knew their work”, and “have met”, as well as a multiplex network of all of these ties combined. Of particular interest is the tie “knew their work”, illustrated in Figure 1, because it is the most meaningful connection for potential


30

Figure 1. Baseline Sociogram for “knew their work” Network

future collaboration. One may have heard of, or have met another individual, but still be ignorant of their research. In the absence of knowing another potential collaborator’s work, one would be unlikely to approach them to collaborate on a project. For “knew their work”, the network density was 3.7%, indicating that only 3.7% of all potential ties in the network existed at baseline. Fourteen individuals knew nothing of other research grant recipients’ work prior to CRGI (53.8%). The highest degree for the “knew of ” network was 6, showing that the most connected person only knew the work of 6 other individuals.

Our second research question asked if CRGI activities affected integration. Again, we examined degree, isolates, and density for the CRGI event networks. Opportunities to meet at the CRGI were organized around sharing information regarding grant recipient research and other related work. In order to clarify which of the CRGI events had been particularly useful in introducing grant recipients we asked those who met through our events to identify the event where they had

Table 2. Baseline Network Measures

Density % Isolates Mean degree Sd Min degree Max degreeHave heard of 8.6 4 2.154 2.178 0 10Knew their work 3.7 14 0.923 1.385 0 6Have met 7.7 8 1.923 2.074 0 8

Multiplex before 0.185 3 4.615 3.431 0 26


31


met one another. Results for the CRGI workshops and annual conference events are provided in Table 3 and illustrated in Figures 2 and Figure 3, respectively. While the density of the CRGI workshops network was relatively low (5.5%) we can say the event was successful in that there were only 12 isolates, a combination of grant recipients who already had met prior to the sessions (as per research question 1), or at our other event illustrated in Figure 3. Similarly, the annual conference event was successful in bringing people together as the density increased over that of the workshops (7.4%), there were fewer isolates (4), and there was an increase in maximum degree from before and after the workshops.

Our third and final research question asked what changes in relationships among network members occurred after CRGI related activities. It was asked to help clarify the overall success of CRGI efforts to introduce grant recipients to each other and to increase awareness of their work. Network measures for research question 3 are displayed in Table 4 and illustrate that there was a sharp increase in all network measures of inter-grant recipient connection and a decrease in the number of isolates. After the CRGI workshops and conference all grant recipients had at least heard of one other grant recipient, at least one individual had heard of nearly all of the grant recipients, and density increased to 22.8% (from 8.6%). For the “have heard of ” network,

Table 3. CRGI Event Networks Measures

Density % Isolates Mean degree Sd Min degree Max degreeCRGI information workshops

5.5 12 1.385 2.114 0 8

Found in translation 4.7 4 1.846 2.231 0 11

Figure 2. Sociogram for CRGI Workshop


32

22.8% of all possible ties had been made (not illustrated). For the “had met” network, one isolate remained, but 13.8% of all possible introductions had been made, an increase of 6.1% over the pre-CRGI situation (Figure 4). For the “know of ” network one isolate remained, and 16.6% of all possible connections had been made, an increase in density of 12.9% over baseline (Figure 5).

Finally, the multiplex network is composed of all possible ties and demonstrates that 47.4% of all possible ties had been made (an increase in density of 47.2%); at least one person had been tied to every other possible individual in some way (Figure 6). Examining Figure 6 and Figure 7 provides a comparison of all possible ties before and after the CRGI (respectively) and illustrates the significant increase in number of connections between baseline and conclusion. All differences in density from baseline were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Our results demonstrate that overall, the CRGI was successful in achieving its goals of increasing awareness of Alberta-based research among our grant recipients.

Table 4. Post-CRGI Event Network Measures

Density % Isolates Mean degree Sd Min degree Max degreeHave heard of 16.6 1 4.154 4.312 0 21Knew their work 13.8 1 3.462 3.066 0 14Have met 22.8 0 5.692 5.312 1 23

Multiplex before 0.474 0 11.846 6.0363 4 25


Figure 3. Sociogram for CRGI Conference

33



Figure 4. Sociogram for “have met” After CRGI Events

Figure 5. Sociogram for “know their work” After CRGI Events

34 Barron, Scarlett-Ferguson, Aspen

Figure 6. Sociogram for All Relations After CRGI Events

Figure 7. Sociogram for All Relations Before CRGI Events

35


Discussion and Conclusions

Opportunities for research grant recipients to meet face to face were organized around sharing information regarding grant recipient research and other work. Our survey results regarding which activities may have affected integration (Table 2 and Figures 2 & 3) demonstrate that the events were successful and the annual conference further enhanced the relationships between grant recipients overall.

Research administrators interested in using information derived from network analysis will find it is most useful when combined with a strategic vision of organization goals. Beyond merely tracking progress toward those goals, it can also be used to identify strengths or, alternatively, areas in need of improvement in order to adapt activities toward achieving objectives (Aboelela, Merrill, Carley, & Larson, 2007). We provide an example of such network engineering by focusing on the objective of building more meaningful relationships between research grant recipients. Second, we use our network graphs to demonstrate how to identify key network members and how we might have used information about differences between types of relationships in order to achieve organization objectives.

One of the primary goals for the CRGI was to increase meaningful relationships among mental health researchers in Alberta. While this study has demonstrated that this goal was achieved, it would be possible to use these analyses in order to further engage in strategic intervention to build even more meaningful relationships between its grant recipients over time. For example, we recommend finding individuals who are connected through “have met” or “heard of ” and further connecting them through knowledge of one another’s work (Norman & Huerta, 2006). Another approach would be to determine individual relationships in order to pinpoint which people might play a key role in implementing research based practices, but this would not be possible in the absence of any knowledge regarding what research is available for translation (Palinkas et al., 2011).

Research has demonstrated that individuals with a high degree of centrality can be useful in taking on leadership positions (Long, et al., 2013). Thus, well connected individuals can assist in building future collaborations and sharing important information. The “know of ” sociogram (Figure 5) is of particular interest to our potential strategic planning for network engineering. In our “know of ” network, the research grant recipient represented by the gray square in the center of the sociogram is a “star” in that the person knows the work of many other individuals, including service providers and researchers. Relative to having heard of, or met others, knowing others’ work is a particularly strategic relationship in that this knowledge is important for identifying common interests among our grant recipients. This research grant recipient could play a particularly important role identifying potential future collaborators and facilitating their work. Figure 5 also contains other valuable information. This grant recipient’s occupation is as a service provider which in combination with her knowledge of research and connections to other researchers or service providers can allow her to play an important role in moving research to practice. Future work with the CRGI could also examine the networks for betweeness centrality, which provides a measure of the shortest path between actors and may indicate the most effective means of brokering new relationships. Godley, Sharkey, and Weiss (2013) used these network measures to identify leaders in networks of neuroscientists at a university brain research institute. A research


36

administrator could easily make use of such information to broker relationships between leaders and other network members, to disseminate information, or to achieve other goals.

Our aims for this study were to use social network analysis to review the success of a collaborative research grant initiative in meeting its goals of increasing research awareness and connecting grant recipients from diverse disciplines and organizations across Alberta. We also provided some examples of potential strategies for future network building. Both the CRGI workshops and annual conference events helped facilitate Ministry goals. Research administrators will likely find that building support into research grants, such as workshops that provide an overview of available grants and the application process or conferences that incorporate networking activities, will likely enhance research awareness and collaboration in other collaborative grant initiatives.

Some limitations of this study include that our survey was administered at one point in time, rather than at several time points. Having measures at more than one point in time may have allowed us to provide a more nuanced analysis and reduced the possibility of memory failure in our participants. Administering the survey at only one time point was due to our funding requirements. The survey had to be administered before the end of the grant term and two more networking events occurred after our survey. Our results likely under estimate the degree to which the CRGI increased awareness and collaboration among grant recipients. Moreover, we were unable to follow up and test future strategic planning for our research networks and we could not examine the specific types of collaborations that resulted from the CRGI. Additionally, we were only able to achieve a response rate of 76.5%. For network analysis, having full member participation is important for understanding network dynamics. Missing a key influential individual may also have implications for using SNA for strategic planning. However, in our study we did know all potential participants and to the best of our knowledge none who were particularly influential or central did not participate. Future research should examine long term outcomes of collaborative research grant initiatives. Also, whereas we examined a broad network building intervention—the annual conference event—future research might more closely examine specific elements of such an event to consider their individual utility. Despite these limitations, our results demonstrate that overall, the CRGI was successful in achieving its goals of increasing awareness of Alberta-based mental health and disability research among our grant recipients and bringing them together to foster future collaboration. In addition, our results demonstrate the value of social network analysis for evaluation of the effectiveness of CRGI type initiatives.


37


Author’s Note

Gary Barron holds bachelors degrees in sociology and psychology, a master’s degree in sociology and is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University of Alberta. He is a social research methodologist with interests in the sociology of knowledge, health and illness, mental health and illness, quantification and statistics. Heather Scarlett-Ferguson holds a bachelor of science in pharmacy, a master’s degree in education and is a doctoral candidate in the Centre for Distance Education at Athabasca University. She is a knowledge exchange expert working in Management at Alberta Health Services - Addiction & Mental Health. Cathy Aspen holds a bachelors degree in management and master’s degree in science (management). She is a research coordinator for Alberta Health Services- Addiction & Mental Health. Funds dispersed through the Collaborative Research Grant Initiative were provided by the Alberta Ministry of Human Services. The CRGI was administered and evaluated by Alberta Health Services- Addiction & Mental Health. Alberta Health Services was an institutional partner on this project. The Grant that supported this project was provided by the Alberta Ministry of Human Services as part of the Collaborative Research Grant Initiative: Mental Wellness in Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. In kind support for the grant was provided by the Alberta Addiction & Mental Health Research Partnership Program. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Heather Scarlett-Ferguson, Manager, Knowledge Exchange, Alberta Health Services, Centennial Centre for Mental Health & Brain Injury, Box 1000, Ponoka, Alberta, Canada, T4J 1R8.

Gary RS Barron Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts,15-07 Tory Building, University of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G [email protected]

Heather Scarlett-Ferguson (Corresponding Author)Alberta Health Services, Addiction & Mental HealthCentennial Centre for Mental Health & Brain InjuryBox 1000, Ponoka, AB, Canada T4J [email protected]

Cathy AspenAlberta Health Services, Addiction & Mental Health2nd Floor, Associated Engineering Plaza, #254-10909 Jasper AvenueEdmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J [email protected]


38

References

Aboelela, S. W., Merrill, J. A., Carley, K. M., & Larson, E. (2007). Social network analysis to evaluate an interdisciplinary research center. Journal of Research Administration, 38(1), 61–79.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Cohen, L., Lawrence, M., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education 6th edition. London: Routledge.

Craven, M. A., & Bland, R. (2006). Better practices in collaborative mental health care: An analysis of the evidence base. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 5(S1), 7S–72.

Godley, J., Barron, G., & Sharma, A. M. (2011). Using social network analysis to assess collaboration in health research. Journal of Healthcare, Science, and the Humanities, 1(2), 99–118.

Godley, J., Sharkey, K. A., & Weiss, S. (2013). Networks of neuroscientists: Professional interactions within an interdisciplinary brain research institute. Journal of Research Administration, 44(2), 94–123.

Hargadon, A. B. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 41–85.

Heath, S., Fuller, A., & Johnston, B. (2009). Chasing shadows: Defining network boundaries in qualitative social network analysis. Qualitative Research, 9(5), 645–661. doi:10.1177/1468794109343631

Long, J. C., Cunningham, F. C., Wiley, J., Carswell, P., & Braithwaite, J. (2013). Leadership in complex networks: The importance of network position and strategic action in a translational cancer research network. Implementation Science, 8, 122–133. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-122

Marin, A. (2004). Are respondents more likely to list alters with certain characteristics? Implications for name generator data. Social Networks, 26(4), 289–307. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2004.06.001

Marsden, P. V. (1990). Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 435-463. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.002251


39


Norman, C. D., & Huerta, T. (2006). Knowledge transfer & exchange through social networks: Building foundations for a community of practice within tobacco control. Implementation Science, 1(1), 20. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-1-20

Palinkas, L. A., Holloway, I. W., Rice, E., Fuentes, D., Wu, Q., & Chamberlain, P. (2011). Social networks and implementation of evidence-based practices in public youth-serving systems: A mixed methods study. Implementation Science, 6, 113–114. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-113

Quatman, C., & Chelladurai, P. (2008). Social network theory and analysis: A complementary lens for inquiry. Journal of Sport Management, 22(3), 338–360.

Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook 2nd edition. London: Sage.

Stokols, D., Fuqua, J., Gross, J., Harvey, R., Phillips, K., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., … Trochim, W. (2003). Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 5(S1), S21–39.

Thomas-Hunt, M., Ogden, T. Y., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Who’s really sharing? Effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. Management Science, 49(4), 464–477.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wensing, M., van Lieshout, J., Koetsenruiter, J., & Reeves, D. (2010). Information exchange networks for chronic illness care in primary care practices: An observational study. Implementation Science, 5, 3-13. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-3


40 Barron, Scarlett-Ferguson, Aspen

Appendix A – Network Survey

MODIFIED ONLINE SURVEY

Please indicate whether you have “heard of,” “know,” “met,” or “collaborated with” for each of the individuals listed for each scenario.

Think about before you applied for a CRGI Research grant…

1. Did not you know this person, skip to next person

2. Had you heard of

3. Knew their work

4. Had met

5. Had collaborated with

a. Co-applied and won a research grant with

b. Co-presented at a conference with

c. Shared knowledge with

d. Wrote a journal article with

e. Other ___________________________

Now think about today and after you received a CRGI Research grant…

1. Do not know this person, skip to next person

2. Have you heard of

3. Know their work

4. Have met

5. If you’ve met, where?

a. CRGI Information sessions/workshops

b. Found in Translation

c. Other ___________________________

6. Have you collaborated with them?

a) Co-applied and won a research grant with

b) Co-presented at a conference with

c) Shared knowledge with

d) Wrote a journal article with

e) Other ___________________________

41


Nguyen, Meek

Key Considerations in Organizing and Structuring University Research

TL Huong Nguyen The University of Melbourne

Vincent Lynn Meek The University of Melbourne

Abstract: University research capacity building has now become an increasingly important task in both developed and less developed countries. In this capacity building endeavour, research late-developer universities in particular need to develop a sound research organizational structure. However, what elements are needed in organizing and structuring university research has rarely been discussed systematically. Applying Mintzberg’s (1979) theory on the structuring of organizations, this study sheds light on the generic parameters of organizing and structuring research. Five of the more visible parameters consist of: (1) create research positions; (2) create research management positions; (3) decide primary organizational units for research delivery; (4) create a research office; and (5) create research oversight committees. The five less visible parameters are: (1) develop rules for research integrity; (2) develop rules and procedures for managing the lifecycle of a research project; (3) develop a mechanism for evaluating the quality of research outcomes; (4) prepare researchers and research managers for the necessary skills and knowledge; and (5) decide vertical and horizontal decentralization. We argue that institutions that pay close attention to these ten management and organisational tasks for creating an environment in which research can flourish are more likely to be successful in building and/or enhancing their overall research capacity than other institutions.

Keywords: Organizing research; structuring research; research management; research administration; research leadership; research organizational structure

Introduction

Once concentrated in the more developed countries, university research capacity building has now become an increasingly important task in both developed and less developed countries (Nguyen, 2013a). In particular, for countries and institutions that are starting to build or trying to improve research capacity and performance, the know-how of university research management is very important for organizational research capacity building. Nonetheless, university research management has been regarded as an “uncharted territory” (Edgar & Geare, 2013), an area “largely unexplored” and a “modestly known” research topic (Bosch & Taylor, 2011). In an attempt to enrich this body of literature, this paper maps out the most essential elements in organizing and structuring university research.

42

Using Mintzberg’s (1979) theory on the structuring of organization as a guide for specifying the main tasks in organizing and structuring research at universities, first of all this study describes in detail five of the more visible parameters and five less visible parameters in research organizational structure. We argue that in order to build a strong research organizational structure capacity, a university needs to pay attention to both the visible and invisible elements. Then, to “test reality” we explore how these ten proposed rules of organization are applied at the Group of Eight universities in Australia. The Group of Eight (Go8) is a coalition of leading Australian universities, comprehensive in general and professional education and distinguished by depth and breadth in research formally incorporated in 1999 [https://go8.edu.au/].

This study is helpful for research policy and management researchers and practitioners. It defines clearly generic elements in structuring and organizing research. In thinking about organizing and structuring research, people may simply equate it with a research organizational structure chart. This study shows that in fact apart from some more visible structuring activities, a university must consider carefully a number of intangible tasks which are extremely essential for sustainably developing its research capacity. By using the framework provided in this study as a tool, university research leaders and managers can assess the level of comprehensiveness of their current research organizational structure. From this evaluation, they can identify the gaps and develop relevant strategies for better managing research or for building relevant capacity for organizational research development.

The framework outlined below was developed during the course of an empirical study of research management and capacity building amongst leading research universities in Vietnam (see Nguyen 2013a, 2013b). This paper deals mainly with the theoretical conceptualisation of that framework and its applicability to the Group of Eight universities in Australia.

Background

Structure seems to be at the root of many of the questions raised about organizations (Mintzberg, 1979). Organizational structure refers to:

the typically hierarchical arrangement of lines of authority, communications, rights and duties of an organization; it determines how the roles, power and responsibilities are assigned, controlled, and coordinated, and how information flows between the different levels of management. How an organization is structured depends on its objectives and strategy. (BusinessDictionary.com, para 1–2)

A university’s three major tasks are teaching, research, and services (Boyer, 1990); the organizational structure of a university, therefore, is often based on how a university balances these three main functions, particularly teaching and research. If a university prioritizes teaching, it may only care about structuring its organization in a way that best promotes teaching and learning. However, if a university wants to promote research, it must consider building its organizational structure so as to enhance research activity. In other words, in shaping research policy and practice, a university needs to have a sound and appropriate research management structure (Bosch & Taylor, 2011; Pettigrew, Lee, Meek, & Barros, 2013).

Nguyen, Meek

43


Although a university needs a strong research management structure, surprisingly, very few publications have discussed the key elements in organizing and structuring university research from an organizational structure perspective. One argument may be that there is no single model for a university organizational structure because differences in organizational structure reflect local circumstances, in particular, institutional culture and history, an institution’s strategic and operational plans, and the financial constraints of the institution ( John Taylor, 2006). While this is a sensible argument, there remain generic organizational structure issues that all universities must carefully consider. In shedding lights on these issues, this paper employs Mintzberg’s (1979) theory on the structuring of organization to specify the main tasks in organizing and structuring research. Mintzberg’s (1979) is used as a guide because this is a classic, comprehensive work on organizational structure that is highly cited. This framework consists of four generic parameters: (1) design of positions (a. job specialization, b. behaviour formalization, and c. training and indoctrination); (2) design of the superstructure; (3) design of lateral linkages; and (4) design of a decision-making system.

Parameters (2) and (4) specifically relate to one of the central issues of management, including research management: centralisation and decentralization. In practice, this is not an either/or issue. Rather degrees of centralisation/decentralization are best considered in terms of a continuum, from total top-down approaches of structural design and decision-making systems to bottom-up ones – although Clark (1983) categorises national system of higher education according to where the majority of their institutions are placed on such a continuum. Moreover, it appears that research intensive universities tend more towards the decentralization of authority structures and decision making. These issues will be elaborated further below through the elaboration and application of the Mintzberg framework.

In teasing out the specific elements of organizing research, the study also relies on a number of other studies on research management such as Briar-Lawson (2008); Harman (1998); Kirkland (2010); Krauser (2003); Langley and Heinze (2009); McNay (2010); Paul (2008); Pettigrew, et al. (2013). These research management related studies help to delineate the four general parameters in Mintzberg’s (1979) model into ten specific tasks: (1) create research positions, (2) create research management positions, (3) develop rules for research integrity, (4) develop rules and procedures for managing the lifecycle of a research project, (5) develop a mechanism for evaluating the quality of research outcomes, (6) prepare researchers and research managers for the necessary skills and knowledge, (7) decide primary organizational units for research delivery, (8) create a research office, (9) create research oversight committees, and (10) decide vertical and horizontal decentralization.

It should be noted that this list of tasks is not meant to correspond to all of the characteristics of any one particular university’s research organizational structure. They are not listed in the order of development, either. Rather, it is meant to stress ten elements, which are common to most universities’ research organizational structure. The importance or weight given to each domain will vary according to context, in particular stages of organizational research development. These generic and specified tasks are summarized in Figure 1.

Nguyen, Meek

44

Key Considerations in Organizing and Structuring University Research

Figure 1 displays ten generic parameters for organizing and structuring university research. In this framework, the five more visible parameters consist of: (1) create research positions; (2) create research management positions; (3) decide primary organizational units for research delivery; (4) create a research office; and (5) create research oversight committees. These parameters are considered to be more visible because some specific positions involving people are the end products of these actions. These more visible organizational structure tasks often result in an organizational structure chart, which is usually displayed on a university’s website. The four less visible parameters are: (1) develop rules for research integrity; (2) develop rules and procedures for managing the lifecycle of a research project; (3) develop a mechanism for evaluating the quality of research outcomes; (4) prepare researchers and research managers for the necessary skills and knowledge; and (5) decide vertical and horizontal decentralization. These parameters are regarded as less visible because, after these tasks are carried out, no specific positions occupied by human actors are created. The end products are often a number of policies or knowledge and skills. The following section discusses each of the parameters in more detail.

Design of Positions

Job specialization

Two specific tasks in the job specialization parameter are “create research positions” and “create research management positions”.

Creating research positions

Until 1810, universities did not explicitly incorporate research into the traditional function of teaching (Wittrock, 1993, as cited in King, 2004)). Today, a number of both old and new

Nguyen, Meek

Figure 1. Generic parameters for organizing and structuring university research

Design of position (a): job

specialization

Design of position (b): behaviour formalization

Design of position (c): training and indoctrination

Design of a decision making

system

3. Develop rules for research

integrity

4. Develop rules and procedures

for managing the life cycle of a

research project

5. Develop a mechanism for

evaluating quality of research outcomes

6. Prepare researchers and

research managers for

necessary skills and knowledge

10. Decide vertical and horizontal

decentralization

1. Create research positions

2. Create research

management positions

Design of superstructure

Design of lateral linkages

9. Create research oversight

committees

7. Decide primary organizational units

for research delivery

8. Create a research office

45


Nguyen, Meek

universities are still in the process of making the university not only a place of teaching, but also a place of learning (Boyer, 1990). Depending on the intensiveness of research activities and probably how research is funded, academic positions may be specialized into research and teaching combined or research-only positions. Concerning level of expertise, universities may categorize research and teaching combined positions into lecturers, senior lecturers, associate professors, and professors. Research-only positions may be classified into research fellow, senior research fellow, principal research fellow, and professorial research fellow, or something similar. In the US, for example, these full-time research positions may be classified into Research Assistant Professor (Associate Research Scientist or Assistant Researcher); Research Associate Professor (Research Associate or Research Scientist); Research Professor (Senior Research Associate or Senior Research Scientist).

Most of these research full-time positions have been created recently as a result of the shift in dual funding models (general university funding and competitive research grants) towards an increase in the proportion of funding allocated through competition (Dill and van Vught, 2010). As research money is more short-term, typically about a 3-4 year period, researchers recruited to work in these projects are often employed on a fixed term contract, in accordance with the length of each research project. Many are termed as postdoctoral research fellows. In Australia, for example, historically, the majority of the academics were employed as permanent or continuing staff. However, in a recent survey of 19 Australian universities on work and careers, among 8737 PhD qualified academic participants, 38% is research intensive, 57% is combined teaching and research and only 5% is teaching intensive. Within the research intensive group, 84% were employed on fixed term contracts (Broadbent et al, 2013).

Creating research management positions

In structuring and organizing research, universities need to create appropriate research management positions. For the eight universities both within and beyond OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries in a study examined by Connell (2004), this task was found to be a key to building research capacity and enhancing research performance. At these institutions, both academic and administrative research management positions were appointed.

At the University of Melbourne – a leading Australian research-intensive university, a number of research management positions have been created. At university level, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) (or DVC(R)) is primarily responsible for academic leadership in research, and delivery of the University’s research agenda. Four Pro Vice Chancellors (PVCs) support this role: (1) Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research Collaboration and Infrastructure), (2) Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research Capability), (3) Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research Partnerships and External Relations); and (4) Pro Vice-Chancellor (Graduate and International Research). The DVC(R) and the four PVCs develop and drive implementation of the University’s research strategy and promote University research capacity, performance and outcomes (Melbourne Research, 2012).

At the faculty level, Deans are encouraged to appoint senior academics to the part-time position of Associate Deans (Research) or equivalent. This role provides ‘local’ leadership in research planning, target-setting, research development and performance review. Heads of Academic Departments also provide crucial leadership in research and research training, supported by

46

Centre directors, senior staff and postgraduate co-ordinators. Most faculties have established the position of Faculty Research Manager (or an equivalent) to manage, amongst a wide range of responsibilities, the administration of research activities within the faculty. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) has sought to involve Faculty Research Managers more formally in matters impacting upon the University’s research processes and research agenda.

To make research and research management positions work effectively, universities should write clear job descriptions, responsibilities, accountabilities, and formal delegations accorded to these positions, along with the expectations and measures of performance. In an OECD study on a typology of knowledge and skills requirements for effective research and innovation management, Pettigrew et al. (2013) suggest that research leaders should take good care of two issues: (1) where possible, limit the number of direct reports to a group (ideally less than 10) that allows adequate attention to be paid by the leader to each individual and their responsibilities; and (2) maintain regular personal communication with each team member and collectively. Information on formalizing researchers’ work behaviour is discussed below.

Behaviour formalization

Behaviour formalization is “the design parameter by which the work processes of the organization are standardised” (Mintzberg, 1979, p. 81). In formalizing researchers’ behaviour, apart from job descriptions, it appears that universities most importantly need to (1) “develop rules for research integrity” (2) “develop rules and procedures for managing the lifecycle of a research project” and (3) “develop mechanisms for evaluating quality of research outcomes”.

Developing rules for research integrity

To maintain scientific excellence and keep the public’s trust, universities need to develop rules for research integrity. Research integrity should be defined both for a scientist and for an institution (Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments, National Research Council, & Institute of Medicine, 2002, p. 4):

For a scientist, integrity embodies above all the individual’s commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility. It is an aspect of moral character and experience.For an institution, it is a commitment to creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct by embracing standards of excellence, trustworthiness, and lawfulness and then assessing whether researchers and administrators perceive that an environment with high levels of integrity has been created.

Ideally, the task of promoting research integrity should be carried out jointly by various stakeholders: professional bodies, governments, research institutions, and individual researchers. While professional societies may have codes of ethics and, in a few cases, a comprehensive description of responsible research practices (see e.g., National Academy of Sciences (1995)), governments may pass laws on the responsible conduct of research. At the organizational level, universities are often required by law to develop policies to ensure institutional compliance with laws, regulations, guidelines, and codes of practice governing the conduct of research. Thus, apart from promoting the generally shared values for the responsible conduct of research such

Nguyen, Meek

47


as honesty, accuracy, efficiency, and objectivity (Steneck, 2007), universities need to develop policies to ensure research integrity at various research stages.

In Australia, the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007), for instance, guides universities and other public sector research institutions and researchers in responsible research practices. This Code is jointly developed by two Australian Government Agencies, the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. This Code does not incorporate all the laws, regulations, guidelines and other codes of practice that apply to the conduct of research within Australia. There may be other key guidelines that should be read in conjunction with this Code. Compliance with this Code is a prerequisite for receipt of funding from National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council– the government’s two major research funding agencies. To develop appropriate policies and procedures for research integrity, Australian universities use to this Code as a basic reference.

To give an example, The University of Adelaide formally adopts the principles embodied in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research in its Responsible Conduct of Research Policy (The University of Adelaide: University Policies and Procedures, 2009). The University Academic Board endorsed this Policy on 5 August 2009 and the Vice-Chancellor and President approved it on 14 August 2009. This policy states that the University endorses and adopts the general principles of responsible research outlined in the Code. The university expects all researchers associated with the University such as staff, students or affiliates to conduct their research in a manner consistent with the general principles outlined in the Code and any other related legal or regulatory requirements.

As identified in Table 1 in planning research, universities should ensure that the benefits that all humans gain from human research do not impose unacceptable burdens on some human research participants. In conducting research, universities should have clear regulations for data management, supervisor and trainee responsibilities, and research collaboration. In reporting and reviewing research, adequate attention should be paid to authorship and publication. It should be noted that promulgation of and adherence to policies and procedures are necessary, but they are not sufficient means to ensure the responsible conduct of research (Steneck, 2007). Therefore, universities should foster a culture in which “high ethical standards are the norm, ongoing professional development is encouraged, and public confidence in the scientific enterprise is preserved” (Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments et al., 2002, p. 4).

Developing rules and procedures for managing the lifecycle of a research project

In order to standardize the work processes of research administration, universities need to develop appropriate policies and procedures for managing different research awards/projects throughout the various stages of a project lifecycle. The three main stages may include ‘pre-award’, ‘in-award’ and ‘post-award’. Pre-award processes may cover procedures, guidelines and instructions for preparing and routing proposals for institutional review and submission to the sponsor. In-award processes may cover guidance for managing in line with the award terms and conditions. Post-award processes may detail reporting obligations to the sponsor, financial reconciliations, forms and reports for the institution, and account closeout tasks.

Nguyen, Meek

48

At the University of Queensland, the rules and procedures for managing the lifecycle of a research project are divided into 4 stages: (1) find and apply for funding; (2) establish your project; (3) manage your project; and (4) output and impact (The University of Queensland, n.d.). Regarding (1) “finding and applying for funding” section, all of the information related to different international, national and institutional research grant schemes is provided. The university also lists all of the procedures necessary for researchers to prepare for and submit their applications. Concerning (2) “establish your project”, the university details all of the steps necessary for accepting research funding, advice on legal issues related to negotiating contracts involving research, ethics requirements for awarded research grants. Only when all required clearances have been provided to the university research

Nguyen, Meek

Table 1. Research integrity issues at various research stages (synthesized from The Code)

Stage General Issues PurposesPlanning research

The protection of human subjects

To help ensure that the benefits that all humans gain from human research do not impose unacceptable burdens on some human research participants

The welfare of laboratory animals

To ensure the humane care and treatment of animals are used for doing research

Conflicts of interest § Financial conflicts § Conflicts of commitment § Personal and intellectual conflicts

To prevent researchers from influencing decisions unfairly when there is a divergence between the individual interests of a person and their professional responsibilities.

Conducting research

Data management practices § Data ownership § Data collection § Data protection § Data sharing

To ensure that sufficient materials and data are retained to justify the outcomes of the research and to defend them if they are challenged

Supervisor and trainee responsibilities

To enhance a productive mentor/supervisor-trainee relationship because this relationship may bring into play potential conflicts

Collaborative research To prevent problems arising from collaborative research such as sharing intellectual property, managing research findings, managing conflicts of interest, and commercializing research outcomes.

Reporting and reviewing research

Authorship and publication To help ensure that the authors listed on papers should fairly and accurately represent the person(s) responsible for the work in question and research results disseminated honestly, efficiently, and without bias.

Peer review To promote professional peer reviewing by encouraging: § Meeting deadlines § Assessing quality § Judging importance § Preserving confidentiality

49


Nguyen, Meek

and innovation office, all necessary agreements have been executed and any special conditions have been met, the successful grant can be operationalised. This involves the issue of a Grant Record Letter. In (3) “manage your project”, the university lists all of the key considerations with regard to financial management of a research grant, requirements for progress reports and final reports, types of variations and processes for seeking variations and procedures for project closeout. It is noted that this is a critical component of all research projects which can provide a platform for future research projects. Finally, in (4) “output and impact”, general information related to the University’s research excellence, research impact, and institutional reporting is provided to highlight the University’s research impact, research strengths, and research awards and prizes.

Developing mechanisms for evaluating quality of research outcomes

Universities also need to develop a mechanism for evaluating the quality of research outcomes. The main purpose of evaluating research outcomes is to have in place a basis for evaluating staff performance for promotion and other purposes. This task is critically needed in jurisdictions that have established national research quality reviews. These are national, research-quality frameworks that serve a number of purposes but, most importantly, they provide consistent and comprehensive approaches to assessing the quality and impact of research activities in universities, particularly publicly funded research. Some examples of such exercises are the British Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and its successor the Research Excellence Framework (REF, http://www.ref.ac.uk/), the Australian Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA, http://www.arc.gov.au/era/), the New Zealand Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF, http://www.tec.govt.nz/Funding/Fund-finder/Performance-Based-Research-Fund-PBRF-/), and the South African National Research Foundation’s researcher rating system (NRF, http://www.nrf.ac.za/rating). A university that evaluates its academic staff research results systematically may be able to improve its total research quantity and quality. As a result, universities that do so may be assessed more favourably in a national research quality review, thereby being allocated more block-grant type research funding, and thus significantly enhancing their public image.

There are two major challenges to developing a mechanism for evaluating the quality of research outcomes. Firstly, research quality cannot be measured directly. Therefore indirect indicators of quality such as bibliometrics (which are only proxies) have to be used (Adams, 2009). Secondly, there may be some negative behavioural effects of the evaluation exercise. For example, the use of citations per paper may potentially affect citation behaviour across the system. The use of journal impact factors may cause an erroneous competition to get any article into a high-impact journal, even if this is not the best medium for the output (Adams, 2009). In short, assessment of research quality is “one of the most important, but one of the most difficult, aspects of the scientific process” (Seglen, 1997, p. 1050).

Three main mechanisms used by universities for measuring the quality of their staff ’s research outcomes are: publication counts, peer review, and bibliometrics.

Publication counts involve simply counting the total number of publications and patents a researcher or a department produces. In providing financial incentives or rewards to individual staff to promote output, academic units may decide to count publications from certain journals

50

only (Hall, 2011). One weak point of this method may be that quantity rather than quality of research is measured. Additionally, if only international, highly ranked journals are recognized, dissemination of knowledge at the local level may be ignored.

Evolving from the 17th century in America, peer review is used to “certify the correctness of procedures, establish the plausibility of results, and allocate scarce resources (such as journal space, research funds, recognition, and special honour)” (Chubin & Hackett, 1990, p. 2). In other words, peer review can be used as a means to assess whether a certain grant application is approved prior to the commencement of a research project or whether a manuscript resulting from a research project is accepted to be published in a scholarly journal (Abate, 2004). These research plans or scientific results are scrutinized by scientific colleagues who are assumed to possess “the necessary expertise” (Seglen, 1997, p. 1050).

As the most traditional method of research evaluation, peer review has been advocated for a number of reasons. Firstly, in terms of eligibility, proponents of peer review argue that peers or colleagues active in the same field are the best “gatekeepers” of science (Eisenhart, 2002, Mcclellan, 2003, as cited in Bornmann & Daniel, 2005). They know whether quality standards have been met and a contribution to knowledge made. Secondly, empirical studies have shown that peer review helps to improve a manuscript’s quality significantly, particularly from an author’s point of view (Benos et al., 2007). Lastly, in analyzing the selection procedure used by the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (a foundation for the promotion of basic research in biomedicine), Bornmann and Daniel (2005) found that peer review helps to select the best junior scientists as fellowship recipients. In brief, peer review has long been established as a valid method for scrutinizing research quality.

Peer review has also been severely criticized. Firstly, critics suspect that reviewers who are involved in the decision-making process may not perform the functions either properly or well ( James & Thomas, 1977, as cited in Chubin & Hackett, 1990). Those invited to review a piece of research may lack adequate working knowledge of the subject area. This is particularly true for novice scholars (Seals & Tanaka, 2000, as cited in Rojewski & Domenico, 2004). Secondly, peer review is criticized for being unfair, that is, even though reviewers are expected to judge an application or a manuscript based solely on scientific merit, a reviewer’s judgment may be influenced by ideological differences/sameness between those of the author/s and the reviewers themselves. The likelihood of acceptance or rejection may depend largely on the reviewers’ view of the subject (Benos et al., 2007).

Other weak points of peer review are poor reliability of the peer review procedure (i.e., disagreement among reviewers regarding acceptance/rejection of a manuscript or an application) and a lack of predictive validity (i.e., little or no relationship between the reviewer’s judgment and the subsequent usefulness of the work to the scientific community) (Bornmann & Daniel, 2005). One final disadvantage of peer review may be the inconsistency of panels across disciplines and over time, and obscure criteria for assessment (McNay, 2010) However, all in all, while flawed, it seems that peer review is still regarded as the best process for judging the quality of research (Benos et al., 2007; Bornmann & Daniel, 2005; Chubin & Hackett, 1990; Rojewski & Domenico, 2004).

Bibliometrics relies on a combination of several quantitative indicators such as publication numbers, citation rates, and journal impact factors. A citation rate is the number of times a particular

Nguyen, Meek

51


reference has been cited during the previous year as initially indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in its Science Citation Index (SCI). Journal impact factors are mean citation rates for journals, which are published separately by ISI as the annual SCI Journal Citation Reports.

Among the three methods, bibliometrics seems to be the most advanced method for assessing research quality (Adams, 2009). Bibliometrics combines both the peer review and publication count methods. Additionally, by using citation rates and impact factors, this method enables comparative analysis at the individual, departmental, as well as institutional levels. As a result, this method has been widely supported (Moed, Burger, Frankfort, & Van Raan, 1985; Jim Taylor, 2011). However, due to the unreliability of the databases used for calculating citation rates and journal impact factors, the bibliometrics method also has its critics (Adams, 2009; Paul, 2008; Seglen, 1997).

Bibliometrics may be criticized for four main reasons. Firstly, the Thomson databases which are used for calculating citation rates and journal impact factors necessarily represent only a proportion of the global literature (Adams, 2009; Seglen, 1997). Secondly, citations cannot be compared across different research fields (Seglen, 1997) because each discipline often has its own assumptions and practices regarding the various aspects of how the literature should be used: for example, article length, frequency, and citation structures (Adams, 2009). Thirdly, journal impact factors are a poor indicator because of the variation in citation rate (Adams, 2009). Accordingly, some researchers concluded that journal rankings are not a good indicator of the quality of any paper published in that journal, nor necessarily are they a good indicator of the combined quality of all the papers in that journal (Paul, 2008). Finally, due to the increased use of impact factors, academics may be expected to publish in the “top” journals rather than do interesting and important research (Otley, 2010).

In practice, universities may vary greatly in how they use the above mentioned mechanisms to encourage academics to enhance the quantity and quality of their research outputs. There may not be a one-size-fits-all mechanism. Due to the differences in how research is assessed in different disciplines, the application of any faculty-wide or university-wide research management systems to achieve this purpose may be highly controversial. Among the Go8 universities, The University of Western Australia (UWA) appears to have applied a quantifiable institution-wide system for integrating research metrics for evaluating staff research performance. The university created and used Socrates – a research management system that collates data from existing core UWA databases and two ISI databases and Scopus for individual staff members to create a detailed research profile, known as a Socratic Index. The Socratic Index II, which was launched in 2009, was determined by Research Output Points, Research Input points, and HDR points for a five year period (Owens, 2011). Research Output Points for each academic were determined by publication types. For example, while Nature and Science papers were given 5 points, non-indexed journal papers were given only 1 point. This system has proven to be an effective tool to change academics’ publication behaviours. For example, the number of C1 (refereed scholarly) journal articles published by UWA staff members that are indexed by ISI has increased by 10.19 percent from 1561 in 2006, to 1720 in 2007 (Mast, Glance and Owens, 2008). However, the Socratic Index II is not able to map the performance of UWA publications against the expected citations for the journals they are published in or to display the index information.

Nguyen, Meek

52

Training and indoctrination

In designing research and research management positions, universities also need to pay attention to the training and indoctrination parameter. According to Mintzberg (1979, p. 75), “training refers to the process by which job related skills and knowledge are taught, while indoctrination is the process by which organizational norms are acquired”. Mintzberg (1979) also argued that, for professional jobs, professionals are often trained over long periods of time, before they ever assume their positions. However, for research and research management positions at a university, although these are professional jobs, this argument is not necessarily true. While it is true that most research-intensive universities hire only adequately trained professionals (PhD graduates) to work as independent research fellows, in a number of newly upgraded universities, many of the continuing academic staff who used to work only as lecturers may not yet have undertaken research training courses. As their organization becomes a ‘university’, these lecturers may be expected to do research as well. For this reason, training should be considered as a continuing on-the-job process.

Prior to the rise of the knowledge-based economy – ‘economies which are directly based on the production, distribution and use of knowledge and information’ (OECD, 1996, p. 7), research management positions were either non-existent or not professionalized. However, since the advent of the knowledge economy, there has been a demand for knowledge creating organizations such as the university to manage the knowledge production processes more professionally. As a result, most of the research management positions have been created relatively recently. Therefore, universities cannot expect research leaders and managers to have acquired all the necessary skills and knowledge prior to taking up their positions. Instead, universities should, on the one hand, describe the expected behaviour and qualities of the different research management positions. On the other hand, universities should provide professional development to advance the capabilities of these research leaders and managers so that they can meet the new work demands. The details on how this should be accomplished are beyond the scope of this paper, but see Nash and Wright (2013) and Pettigrew et al. (2013).

At Go8 universities, researchers, research candidates and research administrators can participate in a broad range of research training and development opportunities. For example, At the University of New South Wales (UNSW), academics can access the UNSW Researcher Training and Development Framework - an integrated and comprehensive researcher induction, training and development framework based on the career path of a researcher, from early career to research leader. For professional and technical staff who provide administrative support to researchers and research projects, there are two sources of support: research administrators network and finance for research administrators. The former is established to strengthen the working relationships between the university’s grants management staff and those who manage/support research within schools and faculties. The later is set up to support research administers in designing and managing a research budget. Research students also get access to a number of seminars which induct them to their research training programs or write their annual progress review reports, etc. (University of New South Wales, 2014).

Nguyen, Meek

53


Design of the Superstructure

According to Mintzberg (1979), the design of the superstructure of an organization involves answering two questions: How should the designed positions be grouped into units; and how large should each unit be? For a university research, this means (1) “deciding primary organizational units for research delivery” and (2) “creating a research office”.

Deciding primary organizational units for research delivery

In structuring research, universities have to decide what the primary organizational units are for research delivery. The basic units or building blocks of a university are academic departments. These are traditionally the basic units for organizing both teaching and research activities. However, in some universities, related academic departments are now being grouped into “faculties”, “colleges”, or “schools” ( John Taylor, 2006). Within schools, staff may be clustered by research group. Existing alongside or within the schools may be research centres or research institutes. It appears that rather than treating research as a purely individual activity, universities now seem to prefer organizing research activity at the departmental level or within research centres such as centres of excellence (Hazelkorn, 2004; Jerrams, 2008; John Taylor, 2006).

Even though most institutions want to move the locus of research activity away from individuals and towards clusters, there is no single model for a university organizational structure. According to Pettigrew et al. (2013, p. 52), how a university organizes its research groups may be influenced by “the notions of critical mass and inter-disciplinarily on the one hand, and practical issues such as space, infrastructure and other academic responsibilities such as teaching on the other”. In fact, in developing academic research in a way that helps to balance teaching and research, the Dublin Institute of Technology in Ireland maintained that “to ensure that research informs teaching and learning, and to avoid the proliferation of specialist research teams divorced from the academic process, R&D centres and groups must be grounded in and across faculties” ( Jerrams, 2008, p. 193). However, in a teaching-oriented university in which not many lecturers are involved in research, a centralized research centre may perform better. In whatever form, individual researchers should have scope to build teams with partners having complementary strengths.

Recently, due to an increasing need in interdisciplinary research, universities are increasingly employing an inter-disciplinary based research organization. For example, in investigating the strategies and policies employed by 21 American Research Universities to develop interdisciplinary collaboration among intra-university departments, Harris (2010) analyses policy documents such as strategic plans, master plans, annual reports, presidential addresses, etc. The author found that in pursuit and support of collaborative research interdisciplinary activity, these universities do not only build and implement a commitment through rhetoric policy documents and leaders’ addresses. These universities also ‘restructure or reorganize’ themselves to sustain and institutionalize collaboration (Harris, 2010, pg. 29). More specifically, they provided both physical space (through the construction of interdisciplinary facilities) and social space (through fostering a campus climate supportive of collaborative research via hiring interdisciplinary faculty, providing collaborative incentives such as tenure and promotion policies, etc.). In short, research collaboration is facilitated within among disciplinary departments inside a university boundary.

Nguyen, Meek

54

In another study on inter-disciplinary research cluster development, Birx, Anderson-Fletcher and Whitney (2013) shared the experience of the cluster strategies employed by New Mexico State University and the University of Houston to advance the research enterprise. A research cluster is defined as a flexible and inclusive, team-based, multidisciplinary structure which is defined by a common theme or broad focus area inspired by a major 21st century challenge. This structure encompasses faculty, centers and departments, as well as outsider partners in the community (including other universities). The authors argue that although research centres (as described above) can succeed in integrating research to some extent, they may become another level of management which may duplicate or conflict with traditional disciplinary departments. Research clusters provide an alternative structure which can integrate the strengths of individual researchers, discipline-based structures, centers and even the local community to yield transformational discoveries. A flexible research organizational structure that is not over organized appears to be more effective. In short, this example illustrates how the two universities develop research clusters for both within and beyond a university border.

At the University of Melbourne, there exists a combination of the above mentioned super structural forms. Research is primarily organized in ten discipline-based faculties. The University is involved with 15 Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) and is the lead participant in five Centres of Excellence. These centres are a part of a scheme designed by the Australian Government to encourage collaboration between research institutions and industry (CRCs) and to maintain and develop Australia’s international standing in the Australian Government’s designated priority areas of research (CoEs). Research is also conducted in a number of semi- independent medical research institutes and teaching hospitals that the university is affiliated with. The University is also a key collaborator and partner in a further 15 centres (University of Melbourne, 2014).

Although the University has a strong and well developed central research office that provides general oversight to research management, the day-to-day functions of research management are devolved to individual faculties. Each faculty has a separate research office and research manager. Moreover, the various research units and clusters are semi-autonomous, led by powerful research professors. This is a model applicable generally to all of Australia’s research-intensive universities. While the model creates some tension between faculties, individual research units and the central bureaucracy, it appears to deliver results as measured by research impact factors, such as citations and position in university ranking tables. Driving this principle of a devolved authority structure is the argument that researchers require an appropriate level of scientific freedom if they are to maximise their creative potential. Knowledge workers cannot be treated the same as factory workers.

Creating a research office

A research support office is a key structural and organizational ingredient to help create a helpful working environment for conducting research (Connell, 2004; OECD, 2005; John Taylor, 2006). A research office serves as a centre for both internal research coordination and external linkages. Its main role is to provide support to researchers throughout the university. The most common activities performed by research offices are: coordinating the overall university strategy in research, providing information and advice about funding opportunities, assisting and directing costing and pricing procedures, coordinating major research initiatives, giving advice on legal and

Nguyen, Meek

55


ethical aspects of research and intellectual property, and developing a code of practice for the conduct of good research (Taylor, 2006).

Notably, much of the work done by research offices is advisory in nature (Lues & Lategan, 2006). Research officers should not merely be regulators and enforcers of the rulebook. Instead, they should be de facto members of the research team who can give helpful and constructive advice (Taylor, 2006). University research support should be professionalized so that academic staff can be released from the administrative burden and focus on research. Indeed, these professionalized research administrators should be located in specialized specific management units. These people populated these offices are developing their own professional cultures and building their own professional bodies such as Society of Research Administrators (SRA); Australasian Research Management Society (ARMS); and European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (EARMA). The challenge is to “establish productive relations with the faculty and departmental levels such as to enable creativity at the local level, while achieving institution-wide research goals and to work in ways which achieve a productive balance between the collegial and the managerial” (Connell, 2004, p. 55).

Figure 2 provides an example of the organizational chart of UNSW’s research division. This office is led by the Vice-President and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research). This position is assisted by two Pro-Vice Chancellors, Pro-Vice Chancellor, Research and Pro-Vice Chancellor, Research

Nguyen, Meek

Figure 2. Division of Research abbreviated organisational chart (UNSW, 2014)

Vice-President & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)

• Strategic priorities funding • Research strategy & planning • Research policy • Research integrity • Research reputation • Major research infrastructure • Research performance data • Affiliated research institute strategy

Research Ethics & Compliance

Support •Radiation Safety • Institutional biosafety • Regulatory compliance • Defence Trade Controls

Grants Management

Office

• Grant applications review & submission • Post-award management of contract research & grant funding • Grant data

Research Partnerships

Unit

• Industry & Gov contracts & consulting • Tenders & commissioned research • ARC grants • NHMRC agreements • International research •ARIs & hospitals

Research Strategy Office

• Major research initiatives • Centres & Institutes • Prizes & awards •Grantsanship • Research fellowships

Researcher Development

Unit

• Researcher career training & development • Research integrity • HDR & ECR Supervision • Researcher networks

Graduate Research School

• HDR Recruitment & admission • Scholarship • Candidature management • Thesis management • HDR Systems & data • Candidate development & engagement

New South Innovations

Controlled Ent.

• Commerciali-sation • Patents • Intellectual Property • Licensing • Spin-off companies • Industry links

Analysis Performance & Profile Office

• Research data & analysis • Quality indicators • ERA submissions • Rankings

Wainwright Analytical

Centre

• Mass Spectrometry • Biomedical Imaging •Electron Microscopy • Nuclear Magnetic Resonance • Solid State & Electrical Analysis • Chemical Consulting Lab

Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research)

Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research Training) & Dean of Graduate

Research

• International research strategy • Research grant strategy & admin • Industry research relationships • Affiliated research institutes • UNSW research fellowships • eResearch • Research enterprise systems • Michael Crouch Innovation Centre

• International research strategy • HDR strategy • HDR examination • HDR scholarships • Postdoctoral/ECR mentoring • Researcher development

Executive Officer

Project Team

Executive Officers

Project Team

Chief Operating Officer MCIC

56

Training. The Pro-Vice Chancellor (Research) is responsible for four main research management areas: Research Ethics and Compliance Support, Grant Management Office, Research Partnership Unit, and Research Strategy Office. The Pro-Vice Chancellor (Research Training) is in charge of the Researcher Development Unit and the Graduate Research School. The research office also oversees other research management related tasks such as research commercialization, research analysis, performance and profile.

Design of Lateral Linkages

Apart from designing individual positions and vertical organizational units, universities also need to achieve mutual adjustment for coordination via linkages that are lateral. Research oversight committees are one formal device for universities to link the organization laterally. In other words, apart from appointing individuals to executive and management positions, universities also need to establish committees that facilitate policy and administrative development and monitoring of activities across different management portfolios. These committees may be standing or ad hoc. The numbers and functions depend on each organizational context. These committees are expected to add value to the operations of the institution. There may be cross-portfolio committees and specialist committees. In order to make them work effectively, universities should induct and train committee members so that they will be able to add full value to the work and challenges that they are asked to address (Pettigrew et al., 2013).

At Australian National University, the University Research Committee advises the Academic Board and the Vice-Chancellor on matters relating to the quality and standard of Australian National University research, and on major issues of research relevant to strategic plans and overarching policy (Australian National University, 2014). This committee comprises members from the University’s Ethics Committees, Deans of College, University Librarian, etc.

Design a Decision-Making System

The last task in structuring and organizing research is to design a decision-making system, or to decide the level of decentralization. Decentralization refers to power over decisions made in an organization (Mintzberg, 1979). In a centralized structure, the top layer of management has most of the decision-making power and has tight control over departments and divisions. In a decentralized structure, the decision-making power is distributed and the departments and divisions may have different degrees of independence. To decentralize a structure, both vertical and horizontal decentralization are needed. Vertical decentralization is “the dispersal of formal power down the chain of line authority”(Mintzberg, 1979, p. 185). Horizontal decentralization refers to “the extent to which non-managers control decision processes”(Mintzberg, 1979, p. 186).

A decentralized structure, both vertically and horizontally, appears to be most suitable for research to take place. This is because the university is a type of work organization in which the majority of its members are professionals. According to Mintzberg (1979), in these organizations, standardization of skills, not work processes, is what largely coordinatesorganizational members’ work. Decision power is concentrated largely in the operating core, that is, the academics. The

Nguyen, Meek

57


organization is strongly decentralized in the vertical dimension because this power rests at the very bottom of the hierarchy. And it is strongly decentralized in the horizontal dimension since this power rests with a large number of non-managers, namely the operators.

A number of scholars examining research management strategies also support a decentralized organizational structure. Kirkland (2008, p. 720) notes that “a good research management strategy should not produce central control, or even supervision, but will combine a framework within which academics make their own decisions, and a system to identify any emerging problems at an early stage”. Taylor (2006, p. 8) also maintains that the one key style in research management is “encouraging, supporting and monitoring, but not, except in certain circumstances, directing and controlling”. This argument is reinforced by Edgar and Geare (2013) who examine features of managerial practice and culture within university departments associated with superior research performance. By classifying a range of academic departments in several New Zealand universities into high and low performers, and then exploring how these outcomes might be influenced by managerial practices and cultural characteristics, the authors found that the high-performance group reports a greater degree of autonomy, displays more egalitarianism and places less emphasis on formality than does the low-performance group. In a similar vein, Pettigrew et al. (2013, p. 52) also believe that “leaders of research in institutions are most effective when they have the support of colleagues in positions of responsibility who can exercise judgment, have authority to make decisions and who can manage operational requirements”. In sum, a decentralized structure is needed for research development.

In summary, applying Mintzberg’s (1979) theory on the structuring of organization as a guide, this paper specifies the ten most desirable tasks in organizing university research. These tasks are summarized in table 2.

Table 2 shows that there are both “more visible and less visible” tasks in organizing and structuring research. Although both of these groups of tasks are complex and not easy to perform effectively in practice, the more visible group of tasks may be more readily accomplished. Conversely, the

Nguyen, Meek

Table 2. Ideal research organizational structure tasks

More visible tasks

Create research positions

Create research management positions

Decide primary organizational units for research delivery

Create a research office

Create research oversight committees

Less visible tasks Develop rules for research integrity

Develop rules and procedures for managing the lifecycle of a research project

Develop a mechanism for evaluating the quality of research outcomes

Prepare researchers and research managers for necessary skills and knowledge

Decide vertical and horizontal decentralization

58

less visible group of tasks seem to be much more complex and the outcomes of performing these tasks may be more controversial. Using the model outline above, empirical research can be used to analyse where a particular university is at in creating an effective organisational structure for building research capacity along with identifying strategies for improvement.

Conclusion

For some, research management may appear to be an oxymoron. There persists a strongly held belief amongst academics that research is best left to the individual scientist who knows best what are the most interesting research questions and how they should be pursued. The creative process of research cannot be managed. While there may be some truths underpinning such beliefs, with the advent of the global knowledge economy, research has become too important to governments and other key stakeholders, and too expensive, to be left entirely to the whims of individual academics.

Research drives innovation and nearly everywhere innovation drives global competition and economic prosperity. Governments and research institutions alike must make hard decisions about identification of research priorities for funding purposes, and purse policies of concentration and selectivity to obtain the best research outputs possible under given circumstances. Nonetheless, an over-managed and hierarchical organisational structure for research is most likely to stifle creativity and end up killing the “research goose that lays the institutions golden research eggs”.

The organisational research structure model proposed here is designed to set the broad parameters for building research capacity and enhancing research outputs, hopefully ensuring all of the organisational elements are pointed in that direction. It is not meant as a universal blueprint for successful research capacity building – as previously stated, historical, cultural, political, and geographical differences makes application of any such blueprint impossibility. However, we do argue that institutions that pay close attention to the ten management and organisational tasks outlined above for creating an environment in which research can flourish are more likely to be successful in building and/or enhancing their overall research capacity than other institutions.

Author Note

This paper is based on the primary author’s PhD thesis completed at The University of Melbourne. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Huong Nguyen, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218, Mail H25, Hawthorn, VIC, 3122, Australia, [email protected]/[email protected]

TL Huong NguyenDoctorSwinburne University of TechnologyPO Box 218, Mail H25HawthornVIC 3122, [email protected]

Nguyen, Meek

Vincent Lynn MeekProfessorThe University of MelbourneParkvilleVIC 3010, [email protected]

59


Nguyen, Meek

References

Abate, T. (2004). What’s the verdict on peer review. Retrieved 2013 April 12, from http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.1/peer.htm

Adams, J. (2009). The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57(1), 19-32.

Australian National University (2014). University Research Committee. Retrieved from http://about.anu.edu.au/governance-structure/committees/university-research.

Benos, D. J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J. M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M., et al. (2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(2), 145-152.

Birx, D. L., Anderson-Fletcher, E., & Whitney, E. (2013). Growing an emerging research university. Journal of Research Administration, 44(1), 11-35.

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2005). Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees’ decisions. Scientometrics, 63(2), 297-320.

Bosch, A., & Taylor, J. (2011). A proposed framework of institutional research development phases. Journal of higher education policy and management, 33(5), 443-457.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for The Advancement of Teaching.

Briar-Lawson, K. (2008). Advancing administrative supports for research development. Social work research, 32(4), 236-241.

Broadbent, K., Broadbent, C., Troup, G., & Strachan. (2013). Research staff in Australian universities: is there a career path? Labour and industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work, 23(3), 276-295.

Chubin, D. E., & Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless science: Peer review and US science policy. Suny Press.

Clark, B. R. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross- National Perspective. Berkeley. University of California Press.

Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press.

60

Connell, H. (2004). University research management: Meeting the institutional challenge. Paris. OECD Publishing.

Dill, D. D., & van Vught, F. A. (2010). National innovation and the academic research enterprise: public policy in global perspective. Baltimore, Md. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2013). Factors influencing university research performance. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 774-792.

Hall, C. M. (2011). Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism. Tourism Management, 32(1), 16-27.

Harman, G. (1998). Supporting quality research in institutions of higher education. Australian Journal of Education, 42(3), 285-302.

Harris, M. (2010). Interdisciplinary strategy and collaboration: A case study of American Research Universities. Journal of Research Administration, 41(1), 22-34.

Hazelkorn, E. (2004). Growing research: Challenges for latedevelopers and newcomers. Higher Education Management & Policy, 16(1), 119-142.

Jerrams, S. (2008). Building sustainable academic research in a “Teaching and Learning” intensive environment. Industry & higher education, 22(3), 189-194.

King, R. (2004). The university in the global age. New York. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kirkland, J. (2008). University research management: An emerging profession in the developing world. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 20(6), 717-726.

Kirkland, J. (2010). The management of university research. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & M. Barry (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd ed., pp. 316-321), Oxford: Elsevier.

Krauser, P. A. (2003). The research administrator as servant-leader. Journal of Research Administration, 34(1), 14(16).

Langley, D., & Heinze, K. (2009). Restructuring research support offices. Perspectives: Policy & Practice in Higher Education, 13(2), 37-41.

Lues, L., & Lategan, L. (2006). Research development at a South African university of technology. A case study. SAJHE, 20(3).

Nguyen, Meek

61


Nguyen, Meek

Mast, N. G., Glance, D. G., & Owens, R. A. (2008). The Unexamined University, The Evolution of UWA’s Research Management Tool, Socrates. Paper presented at the AAIR 2008 Annual Forum, Canberra.

McNay, I. (2010). Research quality assessment. In Penelope Peterson, E. Baker & M. Barry (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd ed.) Oxford. Elsevier.

Melbourne Research. (2012). Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) - contacts. Retrieved 2014 November 18, from http://mro.unimelb.edu.au/content/office-deputy-vice-chancellor-research-contacts.

University of Melbourne. (2014). Research a glance: Facts and figures about research at the University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://unimelb.edu.au/research/docs/at_a_glance_2014.pdf.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: a synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice-Hall.

Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1985). The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy, 14(3), 131-149.

Nash, J. A., & Wright, D. A. (2013). Profile of the Chief Research Officer at major research universities in the United States and examination of the current pathways to the position The Journal of Research Administration, 44(2), 74 - 93

National Academy of Sciences. (1995). On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.

Nguyen, T. L. H. (2013a). Building university research capacity building in Vietnam: prospects, problems, and possibilities. PhD thesis, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne.

Nguyen, T. L. H. (2013b). The challenges of developing research resources at leading Vietnamese universities. Higher Education Management and Policy, 24(2), 115-130.

OECD. (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Paris. OECD.

OECD. (2005). University research management: developing research in new institutions. OECD Publishing.

Otley, D. (2010). Research assessment in the UK: An overview of 1992–2008. Australian Accounting Review, 20(1), 3-13.

62

Owens, Robyn. (2011). Managing staff performance through the integration and visualization of research metrics. Paper presented at Perspectives on Metrics-Based Research Evaluation - Two Years On, The University of Queensland. Retrieved from https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:241902/Owens_17_May_am.pdf.

Paul, R. J. (2008). Measuring research quality: the United Kingdom Government’s Research Assessment Exercise. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(4), 324-329.

Pettigrew, A., Lee, M., Meek, L., & Barros, F. B. d. (2013). A typology of knowledge and skills requirements for effective research and innovation management. In Å. Olsson & L. Meek (Eds.), Effectiveness of research and innovation management at policy and institutional levels: Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam (pp. 29-74), OECD Publishing.

Rojewski, J. W., & Domenico, D. M. (2004). The art and politics of peer review. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 20(2), 41-54.

Seglen, P. O. (1997). Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality. Allergy, 52(11), 1050-1056.

Steneck, N. H. (2007). ORI introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Retrieved from http://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/rcrintro.pdf

Taylor, J. (2006). Managing the unmanageable: The management of research in research-intensive universities. Higher Education Management & Policy, 18(2).

Taylor, J. (2011). The assessment of research quality in UK Universities: Peer review or metrics? British Journal of Management, 22(2), 202-217.

The University of Adelaide: University Policies and Procedures (2009). Responsible Conduct of Research Policy. Retrieved from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/policies/96/

The University of Queensland (n.d.). Research Management. Retrieved from http://www.uq.edu.au/research/research-management/

University of New South Wales (2014). Division of Research. Retrieved from https://research.unsw.edu.au/document/dvcr_orgchart_current.pdf.

University of New South Wales (2014). Training and Development. Retrieved from https://research.unsw.edu.au/training-and-development.

Nguyen, Meek

63


Responsible Conduct of Research: Not Just for Researchers

Debra S. Schaller-Demers, MSOM Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

Abstract: Every research institution employs administrative staff who support the research community on a daily basis. Whether in a central office, department, clinic or laboratory, these people may not be aware of the important role they play in safe-guarding the integrity of the research enterprise. Frequently, research administrators are forced to face ethical dilemmas in an environment of opposing obligations, loyalties, and responsibilities – both personal and professional. This paper outlines some of the ethical dilemmas faced by research administrators. The author argues that in order to make appropriate ethical decisions, research administrators need to develop skills to be able to: 1) recognize situations that may present ethical conflicts and when they might likely occur; 2) become well-versed in institutional, sponsor and/or government research ethics’ policies and regulations in order to consider possible courses of action; 3) know who to turn to for help and advice; and 4) effectively implement the best possible solutions to ethical conflicts

Keywords: Responsible Conduct of Research, RCR, research integrity, research compliance, ethical decision-making, moral reasoning, moral awareness

Introduction

Dr. John Galland, former Director of Education and Integrity for the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), contemplated the meaning of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) on his research integrity blog. He stated that “RCR is about an individual making choices in a research program that are ethical and legal, but also that are in-line with the individual’s own conscience, the value system upon which the research is based, and generally acceptable research practices of the scientific discipline within which the individual belongs” (Galland, 2009).

In this author’s experience directing RCR training courses for graduate students, MD-PhD candidates and postdoctoral trainees for three institutions over the last 13 years, it has become evident that RCR is not just for or about researchers. As Galland (2009) suggests, it is about “… individuals making choices…” Therefore it is equally important for research administrators to be able to recognize and understand the underlying concepts of RCR. Why do they need to care? In any profession, daily tasks can become routine and are often performed automatically, absent of conscious thought. Is one merely following steps blindly that have been trodden upon by many that came before or is there a bigger picture – a wider realm to consider? How many times have research administrators been accused of being “bureaucrats” lacking proper appreciation for the science that is at stake? This paper attempts to address the divide that happens when scientists separate themselves from staff because of differences in training and academic achievement. This “classism” can create stressful relations that can hinder the proper

Schaller-Demers

64

administration of research. Scientists and administrators while bound together to work towards securing the necessary funding sometimes find themselves at odds. Deadlines need to be met and compliance points covered that scientists may feel interfere with the creative process. They can be viewed as “unappreciative” of the administrators work process and vice versa. Without a sincere attempt to understand the opposing point of view, researchers and administrators cannot begin to work collaboratively to meet the expected deadlines and compliance points that are essential to a healthy, flourishing research enterprise and at the same time be respectful and protective of the integrity of that enterprise.

Educators or Enforcers?

Research administrators often play multiple roles when it comes to research ethics. They may have some role or responsibility for developing research integrity and compliance policies and procedures, including educating researchers. Yet, they also have responsibility for implementing and policing research integrity. Thus, they find themselves straddling a rather cumbersome fence. On one side they are asked to be educators. Quite often they have a hand in developing or implementing RCR courses or curriculum for students, postdoctoral trainees, and faculty. They may even play a part in delivering lectures or running small group sessions on one or more of the RCR core topics recommended by ORI. These topics have expanded in the US over the years in response to world-wide incidents and changes in political influence, and are considered to be as outlined in Table 1.

However, on the opposite side, these same research administrators are often asked to “police” the science by ensuring compliance with the numerous rules and regulations that are deeply embedded in the administration of research. It is a very fine line one treads between being a positive enthusiastic teacher and a heavy-handed regulator.

Culture of Responsibility

Learning to do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do is the paradigm for RCR success. However, as a former colleague of the author is fond of saying, the consequence for not doing the right thing, is that we “all” might go to jail. Therefore, in the end, it is in everyone’s best interest to be properly prepared and invested in RCR. This is more than either a philosophical or legal debate. It is not enough to know where to find the rules online or in which dusty book on a long forgotten shelf they reside. We must incorporate the spirit of the regulations into our daily work ethic and decision-making processes. It must fortify the way we think about and conduct not only the science, but in the research administrator’s world - the business of research. This is part and parcel of nurturing a sustainable culture of responsibility.

What does a culture of responsibility look like? How is it sustained over time amidst the changing landscape of federal regulations and public opinion? Why is it important to create a culture of responsibility? What role do research administrators have to play? Are they merely silent sideliners watching the main event or do they have a moral (if not legal) obligation to be active, vocal participants in the RCR? How do they begin to weigh the importance of integrity vs. compliance and vice versa? Are these concepts not synonymous? Do the rules and philosophies

Schaller-Demers

65


change if working with collaborators from other countries? How do they discern the proper course of action when reputations, funding, jobs, and perhaps even public safety are at stake?

These are all valid questions that research administrators (and their institutions) need to sincerely consider with clarity of thought as they perform the daily routine of administering to the research enterprise. Each institution’s “culture” may vary in appearance, but at its core should be a foundation that can withstand the onslaught of political winds and legislative whims.

Table 1. Core areas determined by the PHS to be significant in conducting responsible research and ensuring integrity of the research record (ORI, DHHS, 2000).

RCR Core Topics - core areas determined by the PHS to be significant in conducting responsible research and ensuring integrity of the research record (ORI, DHHS, 2000)

Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing and Ownership (including **enhancing reproducibility)

The integrity of research depends on the integrity in all aspects of the collection, use, retention, and sharing of data.In 2014 NIH began exploring reasons for increased incidents of deficiencies in the ability to reproduce data and duplicate results.

Safe Laboratory Practices** Entails the safety of all project personnel and the proper use of materials in a laboratory setting.

Use of Human Subjects COI - where two or more competing interests create the perception or the reality of an increased risk of bias or poor judgment.

Animal Welfare Human subject research is heavily regulated and based on the principles, respect for persons, beneficence, and justice

Research Misconduct Rules in this area ensure that research entails procedures that will cause the least pain and/or distress to the least amount of animals.

Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship

Essentially defined as “FFP”: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

Mentor / Trainee Responsibilities

Authorship is the most visible form of credit and means for sharing and contributing to generizable scientific knowledge.

Prepare researchers and research managers for necessary skills and knowledge

Mentors assist trainees in understanding and adhering to the standards of conduct within their profession.

Collaborative Science In today’s global research enterprise establishing shared understanding is key to a successful project. Generally responsible collaborations are defined by openness, communication, and trust.

Peer Review Academic/scientific inquiry is relatively specialized, peers with similar expertise are in the best position to judge one another’s work

The Scientist and Social Responsibility** (including Export Control and Dual-use Research of Concern)

Researchers have the responsibility to ethically conduct experiments and to provide accurate and unbiased data to the public. They must also adhere to rules concerning public safety and safeguard against misuse of their science in ways that can be used against the public good.

** These topics were not part of the original nine recommended for RCR instruction in 2000

Schaller-Demers

66

Training - Not Just for Researchers

RCR training has been around in the US for over two decades, having appeared on the research integrity horizon in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Under the Clinton administration, much attention was given to developing legislation that would have required anyone involved in the research enterprise to be “trained” in RCR. This voluminous legislation was tabled for further consideration under the Bush administration and never quite materialized as originally envisioned. More recently, RCR training requirements have once again gained some momentum with refurbished guidelines from the National Institutes of Health (NIH, 2009) and the National Science Foundation (NSF, 2009). These federal guidelines however, speak only to investigators or key personnel who receive certain types of Public Health Service funding. They do not address the ethical obligations of research staff who may administer those funds and there is most certainly fiscal responsibility inherent in applying for and accepting federally sponsored research dollars (Schaller-Demers, in-press).

The media has also played a big role in focusing national (and global) attention on cases of fraud, plagiarism, and assorted other instances of professional research misconduct (RREE, 2010). This sensationalism has helped to illustrate a growing need and to center the spotlight on RCR education. This past year the issue of deficiencies in reproducibility has made headline news. In response, NIH has announced upcoming additional RCR training materials for its own postdoctoral researchers to help enhance reproducibility. However, Collins and Tabak (2014) state, “Efforts by the NIH alone will not be sufficient to effect real change in an unhealthy environment”. They suggest that each institution should be responsible for training research staff in ethics and compliance.

Even journals like Nature Medicine (2013) have stated, “Tackling these issues is a long-term endeavor that will require the commitment of funders, institutions, researchers and publishers.” All members of the research community have a stake in the outcomes of the scientific enterprise, and therefore a responsibility to become active participants in finding and implementing solutions.

Consider some of the more “notorious” cases – James Wilson (Principal Investigator [PI] in the Gelsinger tragedy at UPENN), Eric Poehlman (first researcher to be sentenced to federal prison time was exposed by one of his lab technicians, Walter DeNino, who once viewed Poehlman as his mentor), Luk Van Parijs (faked data in various papers at MIT), Woo-Suk Hwang (South Korean PI who coerced female lab members into donating eggs for stem cell research), etc. (Basu, 2006; Interlander, 2006). Is it feasible that so many researchers have been found wanting and not more “behind-the-scenes” people knew what was happening? Or did many know and they felt powerless or afraid to intervene? These of course, were major breaches – consider how many lesser offenses fall well below the radar, yet erode the foundation of science if left unchecked.

Martinson, Anderson and de Vries (2005) argue that serious misbehavior in research is obviously important, if for no other reason than it damages the reputation of, and undermines public support for, science. The media loves the “big story” and these cases (as referenced above) get lots of press. Martinson, Anderson and de Vries surveyed several thousand NIH-funded early- and mid-career scientists, and asked them to report their own behaviors. Their findings revealed a

Schaller-Demers

67


range of questionable research practices (QRP) that are outstanding in both scope and prevalence. Therefore the evidence suggests that routine “regular” misbehaviors present greater threats to the scientific enterprise than those caused by high-profile misconduct cases such as fraud.

Whether misdemeanor or high crime, the larger question becomes who knew what when and what did they do about it? Or better still, what should they have done about it?

Instincts and Training

Back in 2000 President Clinton’s Department of Health and Human Services secretary, Donna Shalala stated: “The explosion in biomedical research has brought new challenges as more researchers are becoming involved in commercial ventures that may create new ethical dilemmas. Today’s actions are designed to further strengthen government oversight of all biomedical research including gene transfer research, and to reinforce institutions’ and researchers’ responsibility to follow internationally accepted ethical standards. Public confidence in clinical trials is essential to the continued advances in medicine we all hope to see in the next century” (Charatan, 2000). It all boils down to trust. Every constituent within the research community and the community beyond that it serves – scientists, staffers, administrators, lawmakers, the media, the public-at-large (potential research subjects) must be able to trust the integrity of the data. The public trust is a very fragile thing, once shattered it is almost impossible to rebuild (Schaller-Demers, 2006).

Moral Reasoning. After directing RCR courses for more than twelve years, this author has heard trainees often lament that you can’t “teach” someone to be ethical or moral. One either is or isn’t by nature. Kidder (2005) defines moral courage as simply the courage to be moral. To be considered moral, he says one’s moral fiber must adhere to one of five core moral values: honesty, respect, responsibility, fairness, and compassion. As one examines the historical record of scientific misconduct, the inherent breaches of research integrity, and the prevailing conditions that cause ethical scientists to make unethical decisions, one needs to appreciate the influences that these basic or core values have on one’s day-to-day decision-making ability (Schaller-Demers, 2006).

It isn’t so much a matter of whether or not a person is moral – it is more about the morality of his/her thinking processes and how that thinking subsequently affects behavior. Honing one’s instincts to become more aware of circumstances that can lead to ethical dilemmas is the first step to making informed and reasonable choices about possible courses of action.

As Galland stated (ORI, 2009), “… RCR is about an individual making choices in a research program that are ethical and legal, but also that are in-line with the individual’s

Figure 1. Facilitator’s Guide: The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct (p.26)

Schaller-Demers

68

own conscience …” Conscience has been blamed for both good and bad decision-making. But understanding the stages that happen before action is taken can help (Fig. 1).

In 2011 the Office of Research Integrity introduced an interactive film entitled “The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct” (ORI, 2011). The accompanying facilitator guide deals with the stages of moral reasoning that one goes through to get from moral awareness to moral action.

Research administrators are often precariously placed in the middle of “opposing” forces (e.g., faculty researchers, institutional officials, sponsors - federal, state, private) and yet, are best positioned to see all sides and to recognize when compliance falls short. Their internal moral barometers are finely tuned to know when something just doesn’t feel right and often they are the ones that get caught having to submit or perpetuate faulty information and/or data.

Education and training in survival skills and ethics (Survival Skills and Ethics Program) is essential for researchers on any level – but it is equally important for the people who support those researchers. Knowing how to communicate effectively with all members of the research community is a highly valuable (and marketable) skill. Often administrators feel as though the scientific community looks down upon them and they are labeled as being overly bureaucratic and “non-appreciative” of the great science that is now being obstructed by what may be perceived as petty rules and regulations. Sometimes those in academia feel that they do not need to concern themselves with filling out annoying forms and submitting them by arbitrary deadlines. The research administrator is trapped in an untenable position between wanting to be user-friendly and service oriented and getting the job done right. This is where the communication factor becomes so important. Being able to actively listen even in the midst of a frazzled researcher’s tirade can go a long way to build relationships that can withstand corrective criticism. The aggrieved party can then be more easily guided to the right path and become receptive to doing what needs to be done. This requires open acknowledgement and acceptance of each party’s feelings. The Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (ESR, 1998) back in the 1990s taught basic concepts of conflict resolution. Key to striving for “win-win,” is understanding that winning is not necessarily getting what you think you want, but rather getting something that you actually need. When needs vs. positions are considered, almost any issue can be resolved.

Two Common RCR Topic Areas of Concern

Erickson and Muskavitch (2006) prepared online RCR topic modules for research administrators which can be found in entirety on the ORI website. They are Conflicts of Interest, Financial Management, Mentor-Trainee relationships, Collaborative Research, and Data Management. Since the bulk of a research administrator’s daily responsibilities revolve around finance, two common RCR-related topics that deserve a closer look in relation to the responsible administration of research are Conflicts of Interest and Financial Management.

Conflicts of interest – and conscience. Conflicts of interest are not inherently bad or unethical. Rather, it is the failure to acknowledge and report real and potential conflicts or the failure to manage them effectively that creates damaging situations for individuals and institutions alike (Schaller-Demers, 2008, Erickson & Muskavitch, 2006, Kalichman & Macrina, 2004).

Schaller-Demers

69


Departmental research administrators can find themselves in problematic situations with regard to conflicts of interest involving investigators to whom they directly report. Sometimes, the interests of an individual can be very different from those of his/her department, and/or the institution as a whole. Personal loyalty to a particular researcher or faculty member, may lead to being asked to perform functions that are in conflict with their obligations to the institution (Erickson & Muskavitch, 2006) – thus further creating another conflict – that of conflict of conscience. Being asked to do something (or in some instances, not to do something) that is in conflict with an individual’s inner moral code can create intolerable situations where not only rules are broken, but careers are destroyed.

Erickson and Muskavitch (2006) state quite accurately, that research administrators are entrusted by the institution to administer sponsored projects and to ensure that the institution provides appropriate stewardship of sponsored project funding. This does not mean that each administrator must be a “compliance cop.” Rather, it means that administrators must be able to identify situations in which a conflict of interest has arisen, or is likely to arise. Sometimes the conflict is not real – but the perception is real, and as such it still must be dealt with and not hidden.

Case in point is the story of Jesse Gelsinger, the teenager who died in a gene therapy trial at the University of Pennsylvania (UPENN). Jesse’s father, Paul, asked the lead investigator, James Wilson: “What is your financial position in this?” His response was that he was an unpaid consultant to the biotech company behind the research effort. Paul further stated, “Being naïve, I accepted his word and continued my support for him and his work” (Gelsinger, 2001). Once the truth came out, that Dr. Wilson and the UPENN did indeed have a significant financial interest in the outcome of the trial, it was public perception that made the misstep all the more egregious. There is well supported evidence that the informed consent was lacking critical information even beyond the conflict of interest of the principal investigator, including critical information always relevant to a patient’s decision to participate in a clinical trial (Obasogie, 2009). Administrators involved with the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the Technology Transfer office, the Conflict Management office, Sponsored Programs office, etc., all could have had knowledge about breaches and errors in Jesse’s study. Information disclosed in newspaper articles at the time make it clear that administrative officials at many levels did know of the financial conflict of interest (Obasogie, 2009). An important issue then is, did they feel powerless to act or afraid of retaliation? This speaks to a need for a culture of compliance that is installed at the institutional level (Geller, Boyce, Ford., and Sugarman, 2010).

Financial management. Research administrators working with sponsored projects, either pre- or post-award, are frequently called upon to make ethical decisions involving the development of budgets, the expenditure of funds and the proper accounting of those costs. Again, dividing loyalties can conflict and confuse administrators, especially those working in departments. Those with a central administration role may appear to have more independence, but as stated by Erickson and Muskavitch (2006) they have been trained to be “of service” to the investigators and faculty – acting as their advocate when dealing with sponsors, while at the same time being responsible for the final approval of many actions and expenditures. It is difficult to maintain that balance between being a facilitator and a regulator. Compliance does not always bring out the

Schaller-Demers

70

best in people who are competing for a diminishing pool of funding. Without the skills and the temperament to deal actively and openly when conflicts and disagreements arise, administrators may feel isolated and afraid to do what ethically needs to be done.

Policies, Policies, Policies

It is probably human nature to both cling to and rebel against rules and regulations. On one hand we hate being told what to do and yet it is comforting to know that there is a set of rules, regulations, procedures and/or guidelines to help us navigate the system. Research administrators need to be “expert” in policy – whether it is on a departmental, institutional or sponsorship level. One cannot begin to be compliant, unless one is well versed in policy and procedure. This is no easy task. Sometimes it feels like the rules are changing on a weekly basis. However, in order to practice proper stewardship and to be able to guide researchers appropriately, administrators must rely on the prevailing and relevant rules to be successful (Erickson & Muskavitch, 2006).

However, a strictly regulatory approach to ensuring research integrity does have its limitations. This type of mindset increases the bureaucratization of science and increases the burdensomeness of “paperwork” (Institute of Medicine [IOM], 2002) – whether actual paper or its electronic equivalent, to a maximum extreme. However, it is virtually impossible for regulations alone to foster a true appreciation and respect for the critical nature of all the nuances of research integrity issues.

In order to be proficient and effective, research administrators need to gain a greater level of understanding and be able to appreciate the researcher’s point of view. They need to find a way amidst the rules and regulations to still be advocates for the researchers in their charge and their scientific endeavors. That does not mean, however, that they should be asked to bend or break rules to prove their loyalty. Understanding what it means on a daily basis to conduct responsible research is integral to being able to facilitate the administration of the research. Often the investigators are not always aware of the prevailing policies or practices. RCR can often be more about conscience than it is about mere compliance. Additionally, many scientific practices are not directly covered by regulations, and scientists and administrators need to know how to proceed responsibly and with integrity in the absence of specific regulatory guidance (RREE, 2009). Training, effective communication, and outreach are necessary to fill in the gaps and to build strong bridges and foundations.

Communication and Outreach

To have everyone within an institution’s research community be of the same mindset is a goal worth striving towards, although a daunting task. Comprehension and compliance with the prevailing best practices are a must to ensure that the research dollars continue to flow and the scientific enterprise flourishes. There is a considerable range of opinions among scientists about how to respond to perceived misconduct -- and an even greater difference between scientists, administrators and institutional officials (Wenger, Korenman, Berk and Hinghu, 1999). Yet, as the National Academy of Sciences (2009) advises, “Someone who has witnessed misconduct has an unmistakable obligation to act.”

Schaller-Demers

71


So exactly what is the research administrator supposed to do – to whom does his/her loyalty belong? Every decision one makes has inherent consequences. Even when one does the right thing, sometimes one is punished regardless of the intent or the outcome. Allegations of scientific misconduct, regardless of whether they are valid, can disrupt a laboratory’s progress, wreak havoc with morale, and even decimate careers (Powell, 2006). So to “blow the whistle” is a very serious step and not one that should be taken without considerable thought and planning. One has to be fairly certain that he/she is in possession of all the facts – with sufficient evidence to back up the allegations. Powell (2006) suggests finding a trusted colleague with whom to confer to support or possibly negate any suspicions. It is hard to maintain objectivity, especially in stressful situations. An unbiased eye can be very useful to help one make the most sensible decisions about what course of action to take. Each of us has a network of people – both within and outside the institution that can help be a sounding board when doubts begin to overwhelm and cloud judgment. The key is finding an objective outside party that one can trust to listen, maintain confidentiality and offer advice without fear of repercussion or reprisal. When policies are discussed openly, and resources and tools are made readily available, decisions become easier. Creating venues and forums where all constituents can be heard, so that all the stakeholders have ownership of the policies and practices is ideal.

Know your audience. Institutions can be quite large and support various sub-communities. Not any one method of communicating will work in all situations and with all groups. “Cultures” vary from discipline to discipline and this affects how the members learn, process information and communicate. The key is to be diversified and flexible.

Keeping institutional websites current with up-to-date information on new policies, procedures, and legislation is a very easy way to reach a maximum amount of people. It takes a vigilant eye to ensure that the information is current. There is nothing more deadly than posting old, invalid information. The sites should be user-friendly. Remember the “three click rule” – if one has to drill down more than three times to find something, chances are he/she will not bother. Consider extranet vs. intranet. Can the researchers and those who administratively support them get to essential information when they are away from the institution? Important information that is buried in cyber space is of no use to anyone.

Electronic newsletters (weekly, monthly, quarterly) or targeted emails to specific groups within the institution can be beneficial for keeping the research community in the loop. To use these tools effectively one has to be aware of tech and information security requirements – are the recipients’ mailboxes large enough to support the type of files you are sending? Is there sensitive information or Protected Health Information (PHI) involved?

Feedback is very important. Researchers and staff need to feel that their opinions are honored and they should have multiple opportunities to give voice to their needs and concerns. It is very easy for research administrators to get stuck in the red tape. As professionals, research administrators need to be cognizant of the feelings of the scientists they serve and be able to communicate what needs to be done in ways that do not alienate or escalate into real conflict situations.

Schaller-Demers

72

Depending upon your institution’s communication culture, social media might be a viable option. Of course it brings with it a whole host of ethical/compliance standards that need attention. Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. can all be utilized for sharing information, timely articles, case studies, and the like.

Remember the old real estate cliché: “Location, location, location”? The same applies here. Research administrators need to be physically accessible to their researchers. Some people simply hate email and can’t be bothered with websites and phone calls. Face-to-face contact has become a dying form of communication. Meeting in person and walking through the process might be enough to make an impression and build trust.

Future Study

The Education and Professional Development Committee (EPDC) of SRA International (SRAI) is working to develop metrics to assess program evaluation. If tools can be developed that would help capture/measure how much knowledge is gained by participants that is then actually utilized at the host institution, it would provide useful information to guide the creation of future program content for its members. It would be useful to determine if training in RCR engenders a more compliant environment. If a metric could be developed to measure subsequent action and decision-making based on learning new skills and information, SRAI would be contributing to the enhancement of RCR policy and practice. Further, if a correlation between the number of research integrity incidences (misconduct and/or QRP) at one’s institution and the training administrators of that institution had received could be documented, this would be very important evidence as to the role of the administrator in the responsible conduct of research (Anderson, et al., 2007).

Conclusion

When institutions are aware of the hurdles and take active steps to create, nurture, and sustain a culture of responsibility – scientists and administrators alike become equal partners on a level playing field where it doesn’t matter which degree one has earned, where one went to school or what position one holds.

RCR is an ongoing conversation. It does not begin and end with mandated legislation, taking a course or attending a workshop. To be effective it must be part of one’s daily functioning – whether that is at the bench, at the bedside, or at the office. It is something that is modeled and passed on between colleagues and from mentor to trainee and vice versa. Anyone can “teach” and the best teaching and learning comes from real-life situations not contrived case studies printed in textbooks or posted to the latest online blog. There is a plethora of valuable online resources, conferences, and organizations that are devoted to RCR-related topics. These are helpful and convenient tools – but they are only effective when incorporated into a culture of responsibility that has been embedded into the organizational structure. A responsible administrator’s raison d’être should be to serve the research community in a way that honors the people – regardless of

Schaller-Demers

73


their job description, the science, and the prevailing regulatory controls. This is a juggling act that requires knowledge, skill, and inner calm.

When the existing institutional culture grants research administrators the ability to achieve recognition for their professionalism and the invaluable service they provide to the heath and welfare of the research enterprise, it is a “win-win” for all involved. Organizations like SRAI have known for a long time that research administrators are undoubtedly professionals in the workplace and as such are best prepared when they care… and care deeply about the Responsible Conduct of Research.

Acknowledgement

A prior version of this paper was presented in Chicago, IL at the 2010 Society of Research Administrators (SRA) International Annual Meeting Symposium. It was built on the concepts presented in modules developed for the Office of Research Integrity (ORI, 2006) by Stephen Erickson, PhD and Karen Muskavitch, PhD of Boston College. RCR for Research Administrators, an interactive workshop presentation, also based on the work of Erickson and Muskavitch, was developed by the author and originally presented at the SRA International Northeast/Midwest Section meeting held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on April 28, 2010 and for the Tri-Institutional Collaboration Network (TCN) at The Rockefeller University in New York City on May 11, 2010. Since that time this session has been presented at various other SRA International Annual and Section meetings and has been used as an elective session for the Research Integrity Certificate Program. Several of the points highlighted in this paper can also be found in: Schaller-Demers, D. S. (in-press). Building a Responsible Conduct of Research Program to Sustain an Institutional Culture of Research Integrity and Compliance. In Dade, A, DiBella, S. and Olfason, L. (Eds) Implementing a Comprehensive Research Compliance Program: A Handbook for Research Officers. Book submitted for publication. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc. Correspondence should be addressed to Debra S. Schaller-Demers, MSOM,Director, Research Outreach and Compliance, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, Box 69, New York, New York 10065, (646) 888-1062, Email: [email protected]

Debra S. Schaller-Demers, MSOMDirector, Research Outreach and ComplianceMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew York, New York 10065Email: [email protected]

Schaller-Demers

74

References

Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E.y A., De Vries, R., and Martinson, B. C. (2007) What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine. 82: 853–860

Basu, P. (2006 May). Where are they now? Nature Medicine, 12(5), 492-493.

Brown J. L., Brown, R., T., LANTIERI, L. AND ABER J. L. (2004) The Resolving Conflict Creatively Program: A School-Based Social and Emotional Learning Program . Chapter 9, Building Academic Success on Social and Emotional Learning: What Does the Research Say? Copyright © 2004 by Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://www.lindalantieri.org/documents/Resolving%20Conflict%20Creatively%20Program%20A%20school%20based%20SEL%20Learning%20Program%20-%202004.pdf

Charatan, F. (2000, November 4). Clinton seeks heavy fines for breaching research ethics. BMJ 2000; 320:1491. PMCID: PMC1118090. Retrieved on June 4, 2010 from http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7248/1491?view=long&pmid=10834875

Collins, F.S. and Tabak, L. A. (2014 January 27). Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. Retrieved on November 11, 2014 from: http://www.nature.com/news/policy-nih-plans-to-enhance-reproducibility-1.14586

Educators for Social Responsibility (ESR). (1998). Resolving Conflict Creatively Program.

Erickson, S. and Muskavitch, K. (2006). Administrators and the Responsible Conduct of Research. Online modules created for the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Retrieved on June 10, 2010 from http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/rcradmin/

Galland, J. (2009 September 14). The Meaning of RCR. Retrieved on June 10, 2010 from http://ori.hhs.gov/blog/2009/09/

Geller, G., Boyce, A, Ford, D.E., and Sugarman,J. (2010) Beyond “compliance”: The role of institutional culture in promoting research integrity. Academic Medicine, 85(8),1296-1302.

Gelsinger, P. (2001). Jesse’s Intent. Retrieved on June 1, 2010 from http://www.circare.org/submit/jintent.pdf

Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Research Council. Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments. (2002). Integrity in Scientific Research Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

Schaller-Demers

75


Schaller-Demers

Interlander, J. (2006 October 22). An unwelcome discovery. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved on February 9, 2015 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/magazine/22sciencefraud.html?pagewanted=all

Kalichman, M. and Macrina, F. (1992-2007). Responsible Conduct of Research Education Committee (RCREC) internet-based course.

Kidder, R. (2005). Moral Courage. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. p.p. 320.

Martinson, B., Anderson, M., and de Vries, R. (2005 June). Scientists behaving badly. Nature. 435, 737-738.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (2009). On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. Third Edition. National Academy Press.

National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2009 November 24). Update on the Requirement for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research. Notice Number: NOT-OD-10-019.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2009 August 20). Responsible Conduct of Research, 74 (160), 42126-42128.

Nature Medicine. (2013 April). Enhancing reproducibility. Vol. 10. Issue 5. Page 367. Retrieved on November 11, 2014 from: http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v10/n5/full/nmeth.2471.html

Office of Research Integrity (ORI). (2011). Facilitator’s Guide: The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct. Retrieved on November 10, 2014 from: http://ori.hhs.gov/TheLab/TheLabGuide.pdf

Obasogi, O.K. (2009) Ten Years Later: Jesse Gelsinger’s Death and Human Subjects Protection Bioethics Forum retrieved: http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=4955

Powell, K. (2006 May). So you suspect someone of fraud. What now? Nature Medicine 12(5), 49

Resources for Research Ethics Education (RREE). (2009). Retrieved on June 4, 2010 from http://research-ethics.net/introduction/why-teach/

Schaller-Demers, D. S. (2006, November). Why do ethical scientists make unethical decisions? Journal of Research Administration 37(2), 105-112.

Schaller-Demers, D. S. (2008, Fall). Conflict: A catalyst for institutional change. Journal of Research Administration 39(2), 81-90

76 Schaller-Demers

Schaller-Demers, D. S. (2010, Fall). Why Should Research Administrators Care about the Responsible Conduct of Research? SRA International Symposium, Chicago, IL.

Schaller-Demers, D. S. (in-press). Building a Responsible Conduct of Research Program to Sustain an Institutional Culture of Research Integrity and Compliance. In Dade, A, DiBella, S. and Olfason, L. (Eds) Implementing a Comprehensive Research Compliance Program: A Handbook for Research Officers. Book submitted for publication. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Survival Skills and Ethics Program. University of Pittsburgh (UPITT). Retrieved on June 10, 2010 from http://www.skillsandethics.org/Survival_Skills_%26_Ethics/Home.html

Wenger, N.S., Korenman, S.G., Berk, R. and Hinghu, L. (1999). Reporting unethical research behavior. Evaluation Review 23(5), 553-570

77


Hicks, Monroy-Paz

Into the Looking Glass: Psychological Contracts in Research Administration

Melanie Hicks,PhD The University of Tampa

Jorge Monroy-Paz The University of Tampa

Abstract: In a world of fast moving technology, pressure cooker work climates and stretched resources, productivity, employee engagement, and talent retention are critical to the success of any organization. Research administration offices are no exception. Psychological contract theory provides insightful illumination on reactions to these environments by various generations of employees. Psychological contract is defined as an individual’s beliefs regarding mutual employment obligations; written, spoken or purely perceptional. Violations of psychological contracts often elicit emotional reactions and can lead to employee resignations. The purpose of this study was to better understand the role that the psychological contract plays in research administration workplaces and provide helpful information to practitioners. The research identified a number of noteworthy differences between the psychological contract perceptions of the various generations and their workplace preferences. These insights can enable better human capital planning and human resource policy implementation for the future.

Introduction

This work examines the effects of psychological contract on various generations working in research administration offices across the country. The psychological contract can be defined as an exchange agreement of promises and contributions between two parties, the employee and employer, and includes an individual’s beliefs regarding mutual obligations (Rousseau, 1990, 1995). With understanding psychological contract as the primary objective, this research examines the consequences influenced by psychological contracts in six areas of interest: organizational loyalty, job movement, career commitment, self-reliance, organizational commitment and organizational culture.

The analysis compares reactions and consequences based on generational cohort and specific ideologies. Specifically, this article aims to establish a deeper understanding of the psychological contract by answering the research questions: What effect does a person’s generation have on perceptions of organizational obligations (aka Psychological contract), organizational loyalty, job movement, career commitment, Ideology of self reliance, and organizational commitment? What effect do current work environments (organizational culture) have on perception of research administration work by generation? The ultimate goal of this study is to provide helpful information to both scholars and practitioners enabling better human capital planning and human resource policy implementation for the future.

78

Background and Objectives

Research administration offices are not isolated from current workforce trends such as employee disengagement and high turnover. As Universities continue to ask for more work out of their already understaffed offices and government audit oversight tightens; healthy office environments and engaged and productive employees are critical. Understanding the preconceived notions and other intrinsic expectations found in your employees’ psychological contracts could be the key that unlocks the door to more engaged workers, higher productivity and lower turnover. This study hopes to offer Research Administration supervisors insights that will help understand their employee’s psychological contracts, commitment levels and loyalties.

Psychological contract.

To date, this topic has been unexplored in research administration literature. However, literature on psychological contract theory from other fields is more robust. Psychological contract theory extends from early writings of Chester Barnard and his classic book Functions of the Executive (1938), highlighting the importance of employer/employee communication in times of change. More recently, Hermida and Luchman (2012) further accentuated the important role of communication in the full understanding of employee’s psychological contract perceptions. They found that employees who receive their primary information from peers had a higher risk of psychological contract breech than those who obtained information regularly from supervisors.

Psychological contract theory extends the idea that individual goals create the resistance or acceptance of workplace change and continues to highlight the importance of an individual’s beliefs regarding mutual obligations to the organization (Rousseau, 1990, 1995). When psychological contract obligations are perceived as met, high levels of trust and loyalty between employees and employers are created which in turn can lead to better customer satisfaction (Restubog et.al , 2010; Wilkens and Nermerich, 2011) , a point of interest for research administration officers as we move to shift the culture from one of regulation and “bad cop” to one of service to our institutions and faculty members.

Psychological contract theory is believed by many to be closely tied to organizational commitment. McDermott et. all (2013) found organizational commitment varied based on clustering of psychological contract perceptions. A similar study by Tsui et. al (2013) found that job satisfaction’s effect on performance was mediated by psychological contract strength. These studies compliment earlier work by Lapalme et al. (2010) which suggests that contract breach by an employer was negatively related to affective commitment of temporary workers, an important point for research administration offices that work with part time or graduate student workers. This study will dive further into organizational commitment variables.

Other psychological contract literature examined the potential link between psychological contract and career/job loyalty. Alcover, et. al (2012) found that employees holding a transitionally oriented psychological contract were significantly more likely to leave the organization than employees with relationally oriented psychological contracts. A study by Restubog et al (2013) found that psychological contract expectations were stronger and violations more severe when the employee-employer relationship was highly transactional and relational. This point is of

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

79


particular interest to predominantly undergraduate institutions (PUI) or other small research administration offices where team or familism is more common.

Finally, psychological contract has been found to affect various work environment elements. In 2007, Hicks conducted a study of psychological contract and civil service reform among Florida’s state government workers. Her research uncovered correlations between the new work environment and psychological contract complicated by education and income. Ng et. al (2010) found that perceptions of psychological contract breach among employees decreased innovation related behaviors. Chang et. al (2013) had a similar finding where work engagement mediated the negative effect of transactional psychological contracts on innovative behavior.

Generational perspective.

Research indicates that attitudes toward the psychological contract are influenced by employees’ experiences (DeMeuse, et. al, 2001); therefore, it can be hypothesized that generation will have an effect as well. Generational cohorts are defined as a group of people sharing similar and stable social and historical life experiences over the course of their lives (Rosow, 1974). Although there are five generations currently in the workforce, this study focuses on the most established three: Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. Characteristics of each are below although cohort birth dates vary slightly from source to source. Dates in this study are adapted from Meister and Willyerd (2010).

Baby Boomers. Research on Boomers (those born from approximately 1946 to 1964) paints a picture of a loyal, hardworking, and secure generation. They compose approximately 26% of the overall US population and just over 30% of the workforce. Boomers, like Matures before them, place high emphasis on warm, friendly workplace relationships (LaRocco et. al, 1980; Yankelovich, 1979).

Boomers are reportedly more concerned with money and willing to spend more of their disposable income on products and entertainment than previous generations (Whitbourne and Willis, 2006). Unlike the generations that sandwich them, Boomers report placing high value on work and generally receive high levels of job satisfaction from it (Rhodes, 1983). Boomers’ upbringing was set in a traditional home life where variation was minimized in public and self-esteem and idealism were instilled. Boomers report feeling a sense of drive and dedication in the workplace stemming from their belief in their capabilities to change the world (Cordeniz, 2002). This notion of bucking the status quo credits Boomers with launching change agent societal movements from the war and civil rights protests of the 1960s to the drug culture and rock and roll era of the 1970s and 1980s (Kahlert, 1999).

Generation X. Also referred to as Gen X or GenXers, those born between 1965 and 1976 currently comprise only 17% of the US population and approximately 22% of the US workforce. Gen X is a generation of nearly 49 million of the best-educated and most technologically advanced individuals in US history (Reynolds, 2004, US Census, 2009). General values viewed most important by GenXers are a sense of belonging/teamwork, ability to learn new things, autonomy, and entrepreneurship (Hornblower, 1997; Ramo, 1997; Tulgan, 1995; Hornbostel, et. al, 2011). GenXers strive for authority, independence, and a voice in decision-making ( Jennings, 2000).

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

80

Hornblower (1997) found GenXers to be more competitive, risktaking and success-minded than Boomers. The small size of this generation as compared to those that surround it, accentuates this risk acceptance by limiting competition and fear of failure.

Speaking at the 2004 Annual Convention of the American Banking Association, Greg Churchman, a retention strategist specializing in generational differences among GenXers said, “People tend to leave when they are not challenged and see no prospects for growth. Salary and benefits are important, but are not usually the top priority” (Churchman, 2004, p.12). He outlines four important traits employers should know about their Gen X employees: “Time is more important to them than money, over 70% plan to own their own business”, (Churchman, 2004, p.12).

Millennials. At nearly 80 million, Generation Y or the Millennial generation is the second-largest generation cohort behind only the Boomers and already represent 40% of the US workforce and growing. Although disputed slightly, this generation is widely accepted to be born between 1977 and 1997. They are found to have high idealism and relativism and a greater propensity for servant leadership traits. They are also highly individual, valuing their own variation but also more accepting of others variations as well (VanMeter et. al, 2013). In the workplace, Millennials hold expectations of constant communication even with those in authority and flexibility to accommodate their work-life balance (Carless and Wintle, 2007; Smola and Sutton, 2002).

The chart below (adapted from Meister and Willyerd, 2010) outlines some basic influences and traits of the generations discussed above.

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

Table 1. Commonly Associated Generational Influences and Traits

Generation Major Influences Broad Traits Defining Invention

Baby Boomer Watergate, Women’s Rights, Woodstock, JFK

assassination

Competitive, Hardworking, Long

Hours

Personal Computer

Generation X MTV, AIDS, Gulf War, 1987 Stock Market

Crash, Fall of the Berlin Wall

Eclecticism, Self-Reliant Free Agents,

Independence

Mobile Phone

Millennial Google, Facebook, 9/11 Attacks, Election of

Barack Obama

Community Service, Cyber-literacy,

Tolerance, Diversity, Confidence

Social Media

With the aforementioned background on psychological contract importance and the overlay of the reality of the multi-generational workplace, this study seeks to provide a deeper understanding of these concepts relevant to employees and managers alike in research administration. We utilized a survey tool to capture perceptions by research administrators regarding the workplace, obligations, job mobility and satisfaction. The details of the study follow.

81


Methods

Hypotheses

H1: Psychological contract obligations will differ by generation.H2: Organizational loyalty will differ by generation.H3: Perceptions of Job Movement will differ by generation.H4: Career commitment will differ by generation.H5: Perceptions on the ideology of self-reliance will differ by generation.H6: Organizational commitment will differ by generation.

H7: Work environment perceptions will differ by generation.

Sample

An online survey was created using Survey Monkey which was distributed in two ways. First, flyers with the link and survey description were distributed at two professional research administration conferences, the National Conference of University Research Administrators (NCURA) Region III and the Society of Research Administrators International Western/Southern Meeting. Next, the link and description were posted on social media sites such as colleagues’ professional Twitter feeds and Facebook pages as well as sent via the NCURA Collaborate listserv. A total of 265 respondents attempted the survey with 226 finishing to completion and 1 survey by Matures discarded as they fell outside the parameters of this research. This left a total sample of 230 participants. This research was approved by the University of Tampa IRB committee.

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

Table 3. Sample Demographics - Gender

Gender PercentageFemale 88.26%Male 10.00%

No Answer 1.74%

Table 2. Sample Demographics - Generation

Generation PercentageBaby Boomer 36.52%Generation X 34.78%

Millennial 28.70%

Table 5. Sample Demographics - IncomeTable 4. Sample Demographics - Race

Race PercentageAfrican American 3.91%

Asian 2.61%Caucasian 86.52%Hispanic 3.91%

Other 1.30%No Answer 1.74%

Income Percentage$20,000 – $34,999 2.61%$35,000 - $49,999 13.48%$50,000 - $74,999 40.00%

$75,000 - $100,000 22.17%Over $100,000 20.00%

No Answer 1.74%

82

As seen in the table 1, the sample holds an inverse representation to the general workforce as the Baby Boomer generation is over represented and the millennial generation is underrepresented. However, this data is complimentary to Roberts and House (2006). As is typical of research administrators the vast majority are female (Table 3), Caucasian (Table 4), annual income above $50,000 (Table 5) , and with at least a masters degree (Table 6) (Roberts & House, 2006; Shambrook & Roberts, 2010). As illustrated in Table 7, the age differentials are similar taking into consideration the 9-year gap, which would increase the number of millennial workers.

Variables measured

The full survey examined seven dimensions as well as demographic information on the respondents. All items were based on the Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 (or 7) = strongly agree. The dimensions relevant to this study are explained below. A copy of the full survey instrument is included as appendix A.

Psychological Contract. Psychological contract obligation was assessed with six items adapted

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

Table 6. Sample Demographics - Education

Education PercentageCollege Graduate 26.09%Doctorate Degree 8.70%

High School 0.43%Masters Degree 47.83%

Some college 6.96%Some graduate school 8.70%

No Answer 1.30%

Table 7. 2006 Study of Research Administration Offices

Responses N %20-29 7 3%30-39 55 24%40-49 82 36%50-59 66 29%60-69 15 7%

70 and above 1 0%Total 226 100%

Roberts and House (2006)

from Jannsens et al. (2003); Robinson et al. (1994) as found in Tekleab and Taylor (2003) and one newly created item. The new item was created to offer insight on an alternative to simply staying with one’s current job or leaving.

� Transfer opportunities should my current job be eliminated

Organizational Loyalty. Organizational loyalty was assessed with 7 items adapted from Jannsens et al. (2003); and Robinson et al. (1994) as found in Tekleab and Taylor (2003).

Job Movement. Job movement was assessed using 3 newly created items as there were no existing measures to capture this data.

� One should stay in their job for at least 5-10 years.

� One should not change jobs multiple times in their lifetime

� One should not change employers multiple times in their lifetime

Career Commitment. Career commitment was assessed using a measure developed by Blau (1988). The first 6 items were taken from Liden and Green (1980), the remaining two from Downing et

83


al. (1978) and the final 2 were newly created. The new items were created to provide additional information on respondents emotional attachment to their profession.

� I like this profession too much to give it up.

� I am disappointed that I ever entered my current profession.

Ideology of Self Reliance. Ideology of self reliance was assessed using 2 separate, renamed, and newly created items based on theory in McKinley et al.(1998). The newly created items were included to gather knowledge on perceived career control per McKinley et. al. (1998) theory.

� I am in control of my career.

� My career success is dependent on my organization.

Organizational Commitment. Three other types of commitment were assessed; affective, continuance, and normative. The affective, continuance and normative commitment factors were assessed using 10 items taken from Meyer et al (1993).

Organizational Culture. Respondent’s opinions of organizational commitment were assessed using 18 newly created items. The first 8 measures were designed to garner knowledge on workplace volatility and work schedule flexibility. The final 10 measures ask respondents to rate the importance of certain workplace culture aspects and professional development, then asks them to rate their current institutions’ policies and support for these elements.

� Whether or not a job has guaranteed tenure is a consideration when selecting employment.

� I believe workplace insecurity is detrimental to recruitment of qualified applicants.

� Job security would make me more motivated to perform my job.

� My organization supports telecommuting opportunities (work from home, flexible hours)

� I am the most productive when I am in control of my work schedule.

� If I could, I would work from home full time.

� My structure of my work schedule makes my personal/family obligations more difficult.

� Work schedule structure is a consideration in job selection.

� Mechanisms to foster creativity/innovation

� Professional development opportunities

� Telecommute/Flexible schedule opportunities

� Mechanisms that promote healthy workplace

� Support for philanthropic

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

84

� In policy and fully supported by supervisors

� In policy but not fully supported by supervisors

� No official policy but supported by supervisors

� No official policy and not supported by supervisors

– Mechanisms to foster creativity/innovation

– Professional development opportunities

– Telecommute/Flexible schedule opportunities

– Mechanisms that promote a healthy workplace

– Support for philanthropic efforts

Data Analysis

The data was analyzed using three specific methods in order to obtain the highest level of understanding. First, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test was run to reveal significant differences between the generational cohorts (as represented by age) as they related to the variables. Next, the ANOVA was confirmed as valid by a Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances (Levene, 1960). Finally, regression analysis was done to reveal the direction, strength and predictive value of the generational differences. Each of these methods was performed on individual elements (i.e. questions of the survey) as well as on the composition variables made up of corresponding groupings of questions for a particular topic of interest, as outlined above. In order to make proper comparisons, each data element was scored or reverse scored based on its appropriate comparable direction. The overall regression model and ANOVA as well as the individual elements mentioned below are significant at a minimum of <.05.

Results Part 1

As mentioned above, the data was analyzed in groupings of related variables as well as by individual questions in order to test the research questions: What effect does a person’s generation have on perceptions of organizational obligations (aka psychological contract), organizational loyalty, job movement, career commitment, ideology of self-reliance, and organizational commitment? What effect do current work environments (aka organizational culture) have on perception of research administration work by generation? Of the 7 grouped components examined in this research, three were found to be statistically significant.

Organizational Loyalty. The analysis reveals a positive and significant relationship between generation and organizational loyalty where the older the generation, the higher the overall organizational loyalty.

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

85


This result reveals some insight for managers as it relates to each generation. For Baby Boomers, it is not surprising to see high agreement on reliability, policy following, accepting transfers, and staying with the department. These characteristics are in line with the literature and commonly held beliefs about their generation. However, the propensity to develop new skills may surprise many managers who see this generation as one foot out the door toward retirement. Engaging Boomers in opportunities to develop new skills may open up new lines of productivity and increase their engagement in their work.

The results for Gen X and Millennial participants are also in line with commonly held beliefs about their generations. Gen X participants fall in the middle of these findings indicating a mix of support. Typically in mid-career, Gen X would be the most likely to be focused on climbing the organizational ladder. Volunteering for additional tasks, performing reliably and following

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

Table 8. Findings

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant)

Organizational Culture

Measure 14

12.792

-1.563

12.385

.554 -.227

1.033

-2.820

.303

.005


Measure 15

-1.247

-2.183

3.745

.963

1.373

1.644

-.093

-.114

.166

-1.295

-1.589

2.278

.197

.114

.024


Measure 16


Measure 17

Psychological Contract

Organizational Loyalty

Job Movement

Career Commitment

Ideology of Self Reliance

Organizational Commitment

Gender

Race

Gross Income

Education

-.601

4.527

2.405

-.548

.698

.624

-2.476

2.258

1.976

-.120

1.489

2.389

1.038

.854

.985

.846

2.334

1.411

.720

.429

-.032

.154

.174

-.051

.053

.053

-.077

.113

.199

-.020

-.404

1.895

2.316

-.641

.709

.738

-1.061

1.600

2.745

-.279

.687

.050

.022

.522

.479

.462

.290

.111

.007

.780

86

policies would be expected as part of this goal. That said, the strong inclination of GenXers to hold entrepreneurial aspirations would likely be in conflict with accepting a transfer or a vision to stay with the department for their entire career. Additionally, the likelihood that they have family obligations, such as care for small children or elderly parents, may inhibit their ability or obligation to work extra hours.

For Millennials, lower organizational loyalty could be a consequence of their newness in the organization, having not fully entrenched in the culture, or could echo popular writings which indicate a fluidity of younger generations’ workplace stability (VanMeter et. al, 2013). This would be exceptionally true for statements of career longevity. Additionally, the individualistic side of Millennial participants would place them in sharp contrast to the idea of accepting a transfer unless that transfer was of their own selection and inclination.

Job Movement. The analysis reveals a positive and significant relationship between generation and job movement where the older the generation, the higher the overall belief that people should limit job movement. This finding is directly in line with the widely discussed writings on Baby Boomers and the generations that came before where lifetime commitment and full career company loyalty were the norm.

Organizational Culture. This area has four distinct groupings. Two of these groupings were statistically significant. The first asks the participants to rate their opinions about leaving their organization. Although similar, this differs from job movement as it speaks to their specific organization and personal propensity to leave rather than the general notion of job movement as a whole.

The analysis reveals a negative and significant relationship between generation and this element of organizational culture where the younger the generation, the higher propensity to leave the organization. This result confirms widely held beliefs that both GenX and Millennials are more mobile in their career path. It has been argued by some that mobility was a necessary coping strategy of the recessionary economy. Regardless of whether or not that belief holds truth, this finding indicates younger generations hold a predisposition to career mobility, not simply as a function of their reality, but also as an ingrained ideology.

The second organizational culture grouping delves into participants’ views on factors of organizational culture that contribute to productivity. It was found to be positively significant indicating the older the generation, the more inclined to agree that these elements elevate productivity. This result was highly surprising as it disputes commonly held beliefs that younger generations value alternative organizational culture elements more than older generations. It could be hypothesized that the question phrasing that tied productivity to these elements made the difference as younger generations may desire these aspects of organizational culture but not connect them directly to greater productivity.

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

87


Results Part 2

In this second area of analysis, each of the 56 individual elements that comprise the grouped variables were examined and compared both by a general measure of age and by a generation measure created by grouping ages into their respective generations based on timeframes from the literature. Of these 56, 10 were found to be significant. Although that only amounts to 18% of the total study, this researcher finds these individual elements to be as insightful to research administration practitioners as the broad-based prediction variables above.

First, the element “I agree that my employer is obligated to provide me transfer opportunities should my current job be eliminated” was significant and positive. This element is one variable in the overall picture of previously held psychological contract findings. Where other individual psychological elements were found to be similar among generations, this element was not. This indicates that the Baby Boomer generation is significantly more likely to agree with this statement, followed by Generation X and Millennials who are least likely to agree. This finding is not surprising as it echoes workplace norms that have been eliminated in the current economy. Where this was common practice for long-standing employees, current job and career mobility coupled with economic actualities make this an unlikely reality and one younger generations are likely unfamiliar with to begin with.

Next, under the umbrella of organizational loyalty, the statement “I feel obligated to work extra hours if needed to get the job done” was also significant and positive. This is an indication that the older the generation the more likely to agree to this organizational obligation. This result garners mixed surprise as GenXers, as discussed above, are in a position to value career advancement but may have family obligations that preclude extra hours. It is in line with Millennials’ often-stated conviction to balance work and personal life.

Third, within the grouping of organizational commitment variables, a variable from both affective commitment and normative commitment were found to be statistically significant. First, “this organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me” was found to be positively significant meaning the older the generation the more likely the organization would hold personal meaning. The statement “I would feel guilty if I left my organization now” was significant but negatively correlated indicating the younger the generation is more likely to agree with this statement and less likely to feel guilty about leaving the organization. Both of these echo sentiments shared above related to the organizational commitment grouping.

As mentioned above, a number of questions assessed participants’ opinions about workplace culture. Questions assessed their feelings about their current workplace culture as well as general workplace elements they find important regardless of the presence of those in their current workplace. Three of these elements were found to be statistically significant. First, “work schedule structure is a consideration in job selection,” was negatively significant. This indicates that the younger the generation, the more important work schedule considerations are in job recruitment. This result corresponds with growing workplace trends of flexibility and telecommuting. Although some Baby Boomers are enjoying these new workplace trends, GenX and to a larger degree, Millennials have come to expect these allowances as a common part of prospective job offers.

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

88

Second, the statement “mechanisms to foster creativity/innovation” was positively significant. This surprising result indicates that older generations are more likely to value mechanisms specifically aimed at creativity and/or innovation. One possible explanation for this result is the career position/seniority of the Baby Boomer participants. If the participants are managers, they are likely addressing the need for creativity and innovation in their work and the work of their direct reports. Alternatively, this could be a sign of a greater life issue. Due in part to the economic hardships caused by the recession, many Baby Boomers are staying in the workforce longer than previous generations. This longevity may not be coupled with additional promotion opportunities and Boomers may be struggling with boredom and searching for a way to keep their work meaningful and interesting.

Finally, “support for philanthropic efforts” was negatively significant indicating the younger the generations the more important this factor is a part of the work culture. This result directly supports the commonly held belief that Millennials are more community oriented than any generation before them and look for similar values in their workplaces as well as the companies they are consumers of.

In addition to these two levels of analysis, one other finding is worth discussing as a final point of interest. The tables 9 and 10 as well as the comparison bar chart illustrate the importance that research administrators place on various organizational culture elements or alternative workplace “perks” as compared to the realities of these components being offered in their own workplace. We explored 5 areas of relevance to each of the generations: Mechanisms to foster creativity and innovation, Professional development opportunities, telecommute/flexible schedule opportunities, mechanisms that promote a healthy workplace, and support for philanthropic efforts. As demonstrated in Table 9 professional development is skewed in responses to the highest level of importance whereas philanthropic efforts shows the widest dispersal of categories of importance. In contrast there is broader dispersal of opinion as to the degree of support by the institution in which the research administrator works (Table 10).

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

Table 9. Research Administrators Reported Perceptions*

Creativity & Innovation

Professional Development

Flexible Schedule

Healthy Workplace

Philanthropic Efforts

Very Unimportant 0 0 0.9 0.4 2.2Somewhat Unimportant 1.7 0.4 5.2 2.2 15.2Neutral 3.9 1.7 17 5.7 40.3Somewhat Important 47.8 18.6 39.1 42.4 33.8Very Important 46.5 79.2 37.8 49.3 8.7

*Percentages

89


What is clear from these findings is that the perceived importance of all but one measure (Philanthropic) far exceeds the reality of support for these measures in the workplace, whether in policy or simply supported by supervisors. For research administration managers looking to maximize engagement and job satisfaction of their employees, each of these elements should be considered in the context of your individual workplaces and discussions around policy changes to better accommodate these requests.

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

Table 10. Research Administrators Reported Perceptions*

Creativity & Innovation

Professional Development

Flexible Schedule

Healthy Workplace

Philanthropic Efforts

No policy, not supported 19.6 6.5 31.4 13.1 28.9No policy, supported 48.7 39.2 28.4 27.5 35.1In policy, not supported 16.1 16.4 20.1 23.1 14.2In policy, supported 15.7 37.9 20.1 36.2 21.8

*Percentages

Figure 1. Research Administrators Perceptions vs. Workplace Realities.

Figure 1. Research Administrators Reported Perceptions vs. Workplace Realities.

90

Discussion and Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to better understand the role that the psychological contract plays in worker perceptions in today’s changing work environment. Specifically this study aims at answering the following research questions: What effect does a person’s generation have on perceptions of organizational obligations (aka psychological contract), organizational loyalty, job movement, career commitment, ideology of self-reliance, and organizational commitment? What effect do current work environments (aka organizational culture) have on perception of research administration work by generation? The analysis compared reactions and consequences based on generational cohort and age. Each of the questions was answered and the results were mixed by generation as outlined in following table.

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

Table 11. Hypothesis Results Summary

Hypothesis ResultH1: Psychological contract obligations will differ by generation. Not significantH2: Organizational loyalty will differ by generation. Positive and SignificantH3: Perceptions of Job Movement will differ by generation. Positive and SignificantH4: Career commitment will differ by generation. Not significantH5: Perceptions on the ideology of self-reliance will differ by generation. Not significantH6: Organizational commitment will differ by generation. Not significantH7: Work environment perceptions will differ by generation. (A) Negative and SignificantH7: Work environment perceptions will differ by generation. (B) Positive and Significant

Our findings illuminate important and practical lessons for the research administration workplace. For the Baby Boomers, higher levels of organizational loyalty coupled with personal and philosophical ideologies of organizational longevity represent a slowly fading belief system. Organizations can capitalize on these traits, however, by creating policies that properly reward longevity and honor the long-term commitment of these employees. This research points to Boomer’s desire to develop new skills and work in environments that foster creativity and innovation. Utilize these lessons as a way to keep Boomers engaged and productive and get the most out of their vast expertise and big picture perspectives. This research also found that Boomers find a great deal of meaning in their organizations. Creating opportunities for Boomers to articulate this meaning may inspire younger generations, particularly Millennials, to find deeper meaning and higher levels of engagement in the organization.

True to their independent nature, GenXers were the most complex of the participants surveyed here. Riding the middle ground on most, but not all, significant elements. For managers of GenX employees, the primary lesson from this research should be to get to know your GenX employees and their individual circumstances and motivators. Are they focused primarily on career promotion or are they pressured by personal obligations? This generation’s commitment to the organization is going to be directly tied to these individualized factors. Like Millennials, they are more accepting

91


of career mobility and change overall, but are more likely to stay in organizations where they see attempts to keep up with workplace trends and accommodate professional growth opportunities.

Finally, the findings in this study largely support the growing body of conventional writings about Millennials. Specifically the lack of organization commitment and the propensity for career mobility are realities that organizations are powerless to counteract. Surprisingly, this research did not find evidence that Millennials believe alternative organizational culture policies increase productivity. However, evidence shows they do hold true to their philanthropic and work/life balance proclivities and challenge their workplaces to honor those values. Organizations that employ Millennials should work to find ways to engage Millennials in meaning-building activities while also making strides to understand the external forces that Millennials draw meaning from. Acknowledgment, authenticity and community building will go a long way with this generation of workers.

As exemplified above, understanding psychological contracts and their related components is invaluable for the success of any organization and that means a direct impact on research administration offices as well. Further complicated by the impact of a multi-generational workplace and the idiosyncrasies of everyday University life, these findings can serve as a roadmap to help research administrators navigate the various expectations and preconceived notions of their staffs and colleagues.

Methodological limitations and future research.

This work offers many insights but certain limitations should be acknowledged and examined in future research. First, this survey is a one-source method and would be enhanced with the inclusion of a second source such as comparisons between expectations of employees and supervisors.

Next, generation is a contrived measure based on an accepted historical timeframe and use of an age variable. It is possible that life stages, not generation, are causing perceived differences. Hughes & O’Rand (2005) contend that although early life experiences do affect people’s perceptions in later years, there is no particular evidence to suggest that these experiences will have the same effect on all who experience them, even at the same life stage, due to variables such as race, gender, or social class.

Finally, a germane future research project would be a deeper examination of psychological contracts through in-depth interviews or focus groups. Each of the aforementioned ideas hold their own merits and limitations; however, each would further a stream of research unable to be captured by this study.

Closing thoughts.

The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence; it is to act with yesterday’s logic.

- Peter Drucker

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

92

Although the theory of generational differences in the workplace was only partially confirmed, the ultimate goal of this study was reached: to provide helpful information to both research administration practitioners about engagement and psychological contract perceptions in the workplace, enabling better human capital planning and human resource policy implementation for the future.

There is no doubt the workplace of today looks very different from that of yesterday, and will be exponentially different from that of tomorrow. For research administrators this means working within the conflicting confines of rapidly changing regulatory environments, high-pressure workloads, and often glacially moving university cultures. The most successful managers will be those who take the time to understand their individual employees’ expectations and strive to create appropriate cultural and policy shifts that accommodate them. In the words of Dee Hock, “Organizations, no matter how well designed, are only as good as the people who live and work in them.”

Author Note

This author would like to thank the research administrators from around the country that participated in the survey that made this research possible. This research extends the insights gained through a complimentary study done in 2007 with government workers.

Melanie Hicks,PhD (Principal Author)Assistant Provost & Director of Sponsored ProgramsThe University of Tampa401 W. Kennedy BlvdTampa, FL 33606(813) 257-3889 (o)(813) 344-7203 (c)[email protected]

Jorge Monroy-PazGraduate AssistantThe University of Tampa401 W. Kennedy BlvdTampa, FL 33606(813) [email protected]

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

93


Hicks, Monroy-Paz

References

Alcover, Carlos-Maria, Martinez-Inigo, David, Chambel, Maria Jose (2012). Perceptions of employment relational and performance in the organization: Mediating effects of affective commitment in relations of psychological contract and intention to quit. Psychological Reports, 110(3), 839-853.

Barnard, C. (1938). Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Blau, G.J. (1988) Further exploring the meaning and measurement of career commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 32, 284-297.

Carless, S.A. & Wintle, J. (2007). Applicant attraction: The role of recruiter function, work-life balance policies and career salience. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 394-404.

Chang, Hou-Tsan, Hsu, Hung-Ming, Liou, Jaiwen, Tsai, Chi-Tung (2013) Psychological contracts and innovative behavior: a moderated path analysis of work engagement and job resources. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, V3(10),2120-2135.

Churchman, G. quoted in Streeter, B. (2004) Next generation employees, yeah, they’re different. American Bankers Association, ABA Banking Journal, 96(12), 1.

Cordeniz, J.A. (2002) Recruitment, retention, and management of Generation X: A focus on nursing professionals. Journal of Healthcare Management, 47(4), 237-250.

DeMeuse, K.P., Bergmann, T.J. and Lester, S.W. (2001) An investigation of the relational component of the psychological contract across time, generation, and employment status. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(1), 102-118.

Downing, P., Dunlap, M., Hadley, B. & Ferrell, L. (1978) Work attitudes and performance questionnaire. San Francisco: School of Nursing, University of California.

Hermida, R. & Luchman, J.N. (2012). The moderating role of locus of causality in the relationship between source of information and psychological contract breach perceptions. Journal of Business Psychology, 28, 221-232.

Hicks, Melanie (2007) Generation and the psychological contract: How civil service reform is perceived by public sector workers. Dissertation published by Florida State University.

Hornbostel, B., Kumar P and smith R. (2011) Employee engagement across four distinct generations. Public release.

94 Hicks, Monroy-Paz

Hornblower, M. (1997) Great expectations. Time, 149(23), 58-68.

Hughes, M. and O’Rand, A. (2005) The lives and times of Baby Boomers. In The American People. R. Farley and J Haaga (eds) New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Janssens, M., Sels, L. and Van den Brande, I. (2003) Multiple types of psychological contracts: A six cluster solution. Human Relations, 56(11), 1349-1378.

Jennings, A.T. (2000) Hiring Generation X. Journal of Accountancy, 189(2), 55–60.

Kahlert, M.V. (1999) The baby boomer generation – impact on public libraries theoretical and practical evidence. Paper presented at the 66th IFLA Council and General Conference. Jerusalem, Israel. August 13-18, 1999.

Lapalme, M. E., Simard, G. & Tremblay, M. (2010) The influence of psychological contract breach on temporary workers’ commitment and behaviors: A multiple agency perspective. Journal of Business Psychology. 26, 311-324.

LaRocco, J.M., House, J.S. and French, Jr, J.R.P. (1980) Social support, occupational stress, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2, 202-218.

Levene, H. (1960). Contributions to the Probability and Statistics. San Francisco, CA: Stanford University Press

Liden, R & Green, S. (1980) On measurement of career orientation. Paper presented at the Midwest Academy of Management meeting. Cincinnati, OH.

McDermott, A.M., Heffernan, M. & Beynon, M. J. (2013). When the nature of employment matters in the employment reltiaonship: a cluster analysis of psychological contracts and organizational commitment in the non-profit sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(7), 1490-1518.

McKinley, W., Mone, M.A., and Barker, V.L., III (1998) Some ideological foundations of organizational downsizing. Journal of Management Inquiry. 7, 198-212.

Meyer, J., Allen, N., & Smith, C. (1993) Commitment to Organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538-551.

Meister, J. C. and Willyerd, K. (2010) The 2020 Workplace: How Innovative Companies Attract, Develop, and Keep Tomorrow’s Employees Today. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

95


Hicks, Monroy-Paz

Morrison, E. and Robinson, S.L. (1997) When employees feel betrayed: a model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226-256.

Ng, T.W.H., Feldman, D.C. & Lam, S.S. K. (2010). Psychological contract breaches, organizational commitment and innovation related behaviors: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 744-751.

Ramo, J.C. (1997) Peace is an excellent adventure. Time 149(23), 69.

Restubog, S.L.D., Bordia, P. Tang, R.L. & Krebs, S.A. (2010). Investigating the moderating effects of leader-member exchange in the psychological contract breach – employee performance relationship: a test of two competing perspectives. British Journal of Management. 21, 422-437.

Restubog, S.L.D., Zagenczyk, Bordia, P., & Tang, R.L. (2013). When employees behave badly: the roles of contract importance and workplace familism in predicting negative reactions to psychological contract breach.

Reynolds, C. (2004) Gen X: The unbeholden. American Demographics, 24(4), 8-10.

Rhodes, S.P. (1983) Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: a review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 328-367.

Roberts T. J., & House, J. (2006). Profile of a research administrator. Research Management Review, 15(1), 41-47.

Roberts, T. J. and House, J. (2006) Profile of a Research Administrator. Research Management Review, 15(1), 41-47.

Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, S.M., and Rousseau, M.D. (1994) Changing obligations and the psychological contract: a longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal. 37, 137-151.

Rosow, J. (1974) The worker and the job. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rousseau, D.M. (1989) Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 2, 121-139.

Rousseau, D. M. (1990) New hire perceptions of their own and employer’s obligations: A Study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 11, 389-400.

Rousseau, D.M. (1995) Psychological contracts in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

96

Shambrook J., & Roberts, T. J. (2010). Profile of a research administrator. Research Management Review, 18(1), 19-30.

Smola, K. and Sutton, C. (2002) Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 23(4). 363-382.

Tekleab, A.G. and Taylor, M.S. (2003) Aren’t there two parties in an employment relationship? Antecedents and consequences of organization – employee agreement on contract obligations and violations. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 24, 585-608.

Tsuit, Pei-Ling, Lin, Yi-Shyuan, Yu, Tung-Han (2013). The influence of psychological contract and organizational commitment on hospitality employee performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(3), 443-452.

Tulgan, B. (1995) Managing Generation X. How to bring out the best in young talent. New York: Nolo Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009)

Vanmeter, R. A., Grisafe, D.B., Chonko, L.B., & Roberts, J.A. (2013). Generation Y’s Ethical Ideology and its potential workplace implications. Journal of Business Ethics. 117: 93-109.

Whitbourne, S. K. and Willis, S.L, (Eds.). (2006). The Baby Boomers Grow Up: Contemporary perspectives on mid-life. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Wilkins, U. & Nermerich, D. (2011). Love it, change it, or leave it – Understanding highly skilled flexible workers’ job satisfaction from a psychological contract perspective. The International Review of Management Studies, 22, 65-83.

Yankelovich, D. (1979, August 6) Yankelovich on today’s workers. Industry Week. 61-68.

Hicks, Monroy-Paz

97


Appendix A

Please begin with the following background questions.

1. What year were you born?

2. What generation would you say you most identify with?

3. How long have you worked in research administration?

4. How long have you worked in your current position?

5. Have you worked any portion of your professional career in another profession?

Yes or No, If yes, how many years?

6. Please select the following statement you feel best describes you.

I view a sense of belonging/teamwork, ability to learn new things, autonomy, and entrepreneurship as most important in the workplace.

I value comfort and stability in the workplace and view myself as economically cautious.

I place high value on work, generally receive high levels of job satisfaction from it and identify myself closely with my occupation.

None of the above

Other

7. The following questions ask your expectations of what your workplace should provide for you. Please state the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.

To what extent do you agree that your employer is OBLIGATED to provide each of the following to you: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

An attractive benefits package

Fair treatment

Job security

Feedback on your performance

Opportunities for career development

Transfer opportunities should my current job be eliminated

Hicks, Monroy-Paz


The following questions assess your opinions of your workplace obligations. Please state the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.

8. To what extent do you feel obligated to provide each of the following to your employer: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Volunteer to do tasks that fall outside my job description

Develop new skills as needed

Perform my job in a reliable manner

Work extra hours if needed to get the job done

Follow policies and procedures

Accept a transfer to a different job or department if necessary

Stay with this department my entire career

9. The following questions assess your opinions of job movement. Please state the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

One should stay in their job for at least 5-10 years.

One should not change jobs multiple times in their lifetime.

One should not change employers multiple times in their lifetime.

10. The following questions assess your opinions about your career development. Please state the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

If I could get another job outside my current profession, that paid the same amount, I would probably take it.

I definitely want a career for myself in the field I am working in now.

If I could do it all over again I would not choose work I my current profession.

If I had all the money I needed without working, I would probably still continue to work in my current profession.

If I had all the money I needed without working, I would probably continue working but not in my current profession.

I like this profession too much to give it up.

I am disappointed that I ever entered my current profession.

I spend a significant amount of time reading journals or books related to my field.

99


Hicks, Monroy-Paz

11. The following questions assess your views of your personal competencies. Please state the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

I am in control of my career.

My career success is dependent on my organization.

12. The following questions will ask your opinions about your organization. Please state the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my organization.

I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization.

This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.

13. The following questions will ask your opinions about staying with your organization. Please state the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to.

Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now.

I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization.

14. The following questions will ask for your feelings about leaving your organization. Please state the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

I would feel guilty if I left my organization now.

This organization deserves my loyalty.

I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it.

I owe a great deal to my organization.

15. In recent years, the workforce has become increasingly volatile. Please state the degree you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Whether or not a job has guaranteed tenure is a consideration when selecting employment.

I believe workplace insecurity is detrimental to recruitment of qualified applicants.

Job security would make me more motivated to perform my job.


16. In recent years, the technology has increased the ability to work outside of the physical office. Please state the degree you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

My organization supports telecommuting opportunities (work from home, flexible hours)

I am the most productive when I am in control of my work schedule.

If I could, I would work from home full time.

My structure of my work schedule makes my personal/family obligations more difficult.

Work schedule structure is a consideration in job selection.

17. The following questions assess your opinions on workplace culture. Please state the degree to which you feel the elements are important to a productive workplace: Very Important, Somewhat Important, Neutral, Somewhat Unimportant, Very Unimportant

Mechanisms to foster creativity/innovation

Professional development opportunities

Telecommute/Flexible schedule opportunities

Mechanisms that promote healthy workplace

Support for philanthropic

18. The following questions assess your workplace environment. Please state the degree to which you feel the elements are present in your current workplace.

In policy and fully supported by supervisors

In policy but not fully supported by supervisors

No official policy but supported by supervisors

No official policy and not supported by supervisors

Mechanisms to foster creativity/innovation

Professional development opportunities

Telecommute/Flexible schedule opportunities

Mechanisms that promote a healthy workplace

Support for philanthropic efforts

19. What is your gender?

20. What is your race/ethnicity?

101


Hicks, Monroy-Paz

21. What is your gross annual income before taxes?

Less than $20,000

$20,000 – $34,999

$35,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $74,999

$75,000 - $100,000

Over $100,000

22. What is the highest level of education you have attained?

High School

Some college

College Graduate

Some graduate school

Masters Degree

Doctorate Degree

23. What is your employment category?

Full Time Exempt (Salaried)

Full Time Hourly

Part Time

Other

24. Please complete this sentence. In politics today I would consider myself...

Republican

Democrat

Independent

Other

25. Please complete this sentence. In general I would describe my political views as...

very conservative

conservative

moderate

liberal

very liberal

102 Muro, Stickley, Muro, Blanco, Tsai

Considerations for Elementary Schools and University Collaborations: A Guide to Implementing Counseling Research

Joel H. Muro Texas Woman’s University

Victoria K. StickleyUniversity of North Texas

Lamar MuroTexas Woman’s University

Pedro J. BlancoTexas Woman’s University

Mei-Hsiang TsaiNational University of Tainan

Abstract: University-school collaboration can extend past the notion of simple shared resources in order to connect ideas, share talents, and solve problems mutually. It also provides fertile ground for counseling researchers to obtain, analyze and disseminate data. University-school collaborations signify a connective relationship between two vital and influential institutions, and yet they also represent a plethora of arduous and intricate tasks and responsibilities in order to provide a successful research environment. This article offers an elucidation and delineation of those necessary tasks by offering a comprehensive checklist, providing shared personal experiences, and exploring relevant issues.

Keywords: School university collaboration, research implementation, counseling project checklist

Introduction

With educational funds becoming scarce through state and national sources, schools and universities share the pressure of finding new and inventive ways to enhance student learning experiences and the overall educational environment. This charge comes despite dwindling availability of time, trained staff, or accessible funds in the public school systems and university settings. It may also be seen as an opportunity to implement research studies while assisting beleaguered schools. By using the university-school collaboration model, these often isolated organizations could converge to form the mutual goals of shared responsibilities, combined resources, and joint accountability, which could possibly create a unified system designed to meet the increasing needs of school children (Palladino-Schultheiss, 2005).

103


Muro, Stickley, Muro, Blanco, Tsai

University-school collaboration may extend past the notion of simple shared resources in order to connect ideas, share talents, and solve problems mutually. It also provides fertile ground for counseling researchers to obtain, analyze and disseminate data. The partnership, then, may simultaneously provide benefits to the organizations and the individuals that inhabit them. This article specifically discusses the process, merits, and drawbacks of engaging in university-school collaboration with research potentials by providing readers with a template for implementation in order to establish similar projects within their counseling programs. In addition, the authors of this work include their own experiences when planning and executing such a project. Our experiences mirror the checklist (Figure 1) to show our successes as well as pratfalls.

Introduction to Collaborations

There are a growing number of schools reaching out to professionals in the higher education community for the purpose of establishing relationships characterized by service and research. Upon formation, these relationships can coordinate resources from the university which include benefits to a school-based treatment structure in order to address issues that are important to the individual student, the invested educational institutions, and the community at-large (Stickley, Muro, & Blanco, 2013; Walsh, Barrett, & DePaul, 2007). Many university-based counseling programs have the opportunity to offer outreach and treatment as an early intervention to school children who may not receive services otherwise. These programs may also simultaneously build learning experiences for counseling trainees in a community environment that is realistic, diverse, and cross-cultural. In this way, these agencies collaborate with similar objectives, comparable goals, and mutual advantages to create a rewarding partnership that provides effective, helpful, and well-timed services.

Benefitting the Schools and Their Communities

Existing vanguards for mental health interventions for children are typically school staff members; they represent the first point of contact for children and families in need despite overwhelming numbers and underwhelming resources. Unfortunately, current trends in academic environments require that school employees focus their time and efforts on closing achievement gaps. With this directive spearheading most curriculums, children with unmet needs continue to be thwarted by mental health-related barriers. In turn, their education suffers.

Collaborative projects, such as what the authors are proposing, can create direct services for specific children with unmet needs in an environment that contains the essential elements of consistency, availability, and dependability. An additional benefit to challenged learners is the presence of individuals who are adjunct to the learning experience, struggling children can engage in prosocial activities that may decrease behavioral issues, foster resilience, and enhance the overall learning experience (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004; Bryan & Henry, 2012). In addition, through testing, suppositions may be made about the impact such collaborations might make as well as exposing students to research studies in which they can participate and summarize findings.

104

The advantages offered to children and schools from the support of supplementary resources, services, and opportunities afforded in the collaborative approach are invaluable. They suggest an increase in academic achievement (Blanco & Ray, 2011); and they also may strengthen bonds in relationships between parents, teachers, students, and communities. Researchers have suggested that children and their families who receive services in the schools are more likely to perceive the schools as a support network for assistance while school staff experience less stress and incidences of feeling ‘burned out’ (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). Moreover, many parents may also struggle with issues of time, resources, and comprehension of mental health services. Due to caregivers’ knowledge deficit related to counseling possibilities, the presence of university professionals in the schools provide trustworthy, qualified, reputable individuals whose availability, flexibility, and education may increase the likelihood of consistent attendance and outside support (Evans & Weist, 2004).

The authors, in their preparation for implementing their study which was folded in with checklist (Figure 1), looked at such collaboration as a win –win for the schools and the university. The university would be getting research produced, counselors in training in the community, and a chance to build positive regard for the institution of higher learning. The schools would be receiving professional, knowledgeable counselors (the authors) and counselors–in training who would be easing the burden on the school counselor in each school.

What is Good for the School is Good for the University

As local schools continue to seek programs that may improve and expand their mental health programs, universities are given the opportunity to broaden their training and educational experiences by implementing research initiatives through the collaborative design. Essentially, counseling students would be conducting action research and providing empirically-supported interventions and services under the supervision and guidance of university supervisors with the ultimate goal of gaining valuable experience and gathering essential empirical data (Evans & Weist, 2004). Providing direct services in the schools challenges students to implement their knowledge and training and establish new relationships while concomitantly living the experience of initiating research. These projects promote professional development by helping students learn a process that makes it seem possible for them to visualize conducting independent research in their future careers (Espido-Bello, 2006).

The scholarly remunerations for universities and counseling professionals who are involved in this activity are vast; actively engaging in the community provides insight and awareness to mental health issues or trends worthy of consideration. In addition, it provides opportunities to increase public awareness about the make-up and benefits of empirically-supported approaches such as those presented in this article (Evans & Weist, 2004; Fall & Van Zandt, 1997). The nature of the collaborative approach is to support common counseling interventions, such as in-vivo learning, early assessment, and community-based referral. For the counseling researcher, these projects allow for valuable data collection and provide relevant populations for study.

For example, the authors in this article chose to implement a play therapy-based research initiative in which a group of university professionals and Master’s-level counseling students (counselors–


105


in–training) provided direct play therapy services to children in the schools while assessing academic achievement, anxiety, and self-concept in a pre-test, post-test research design. Our experience in launching and completing such a project can serve as a foundation for others who wish to take similar measures. Additionally, this article and its subsequent resources are intended to be adaptable to organizations outside the collegiate environment that are interested in engaging in a similar approach. Throughout the remainder of the article, we offer our experiences as well as some of our successes – and limitations – when undertaking such an effort.

Pitfalls and Obstacles

The primary mission of many schools is improved academic achievement and an increased graduation rate; the notion of outside influence can be perceived as threatening as it is appealing to school administrators or districts under time constraints and performance pressures. Teachers, administrators, and parents are often disconcerted by projects that require extra scheduling, classroom disruptions, or additional communication efforts, and they may even resent the need for additional assessment or outside ‘help’. Similarly, universities may struggle to find the adequate managing costs, training resources, and competent supervision needed to implement a viable intervention and research design. It can be challenging to even seasoned researchers and counselor educators, who are sometimes unfamiliar with the complexity and culture of the school environment, to effectively align research, school ideas, and priorities democratically. In addition, there appears to be a necessity with balancing the demands of time versus efficiency and managing any unanticipated consequences following the impact of the research findings (Coburn, Bae, & Turner, 2008; Kuriloff, Reichert, Stoudt, & Ravitch, 2009). Although there is a wealth of current literature intended to provide advice or tips on successful collaboration (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004; Borthwick, Stirling, & Cook, 2000; Bryan & Henry, 2012; DeVaney & Brendel, 2001; Espido-Bello, 2006; Hooper & Brandt-Britnell, 2012; Kuriloff et al., 2009), these authors endeavor to present and detail a straightforward and thorough guide, including a checklist and timeline.

Introduction of the Project: The Significance of Topic Selection

The genesis of a similar collaborative project requires familiar steps that begin with the basic necessity for a research question and topic. Selecting a research topic represents a major function of the collaboration process: it effects the district approval and entry process, development of the research team, selection of assessment instruments, research design, therapist training modalities, and decisions for dissemination of research results. It is vital to select a topic that encompasses contextual issues related to the school mission, district goals, and overall community environment in order to ensure the establishment of an ongoing effective relationship within the entire school hierarchy (Kuriloff et al., 2009; Palladino-Schulthesis, 2005). For the purposes of this article, these authors chose to focus their research goals on demonstrating an improvement in academic achievement through the use of providing a counseling intervention, play therapy.

Palladino-Schulthesis (2005) offered several relevant questions worth considering in this process, including the following: What are the needs of the school? How can the university help? What can the program do for the school and the children? What will it cost in time and resources?


106

University professionals may also consider using online resources to discover relevant research trends, or they could narrow their choices by conducting written or online surveys, hosting focus groups, holding meetings with parent-teacher organizations, or attending local community events (Bryan & Henry, 2012).

The authors chose to work with three Title I elementary schools (to qualify for Title 1 funds, at least 40% of students must enroll in the free and reduced lunch program.) in a southern school district in the United States. Because Title I schools are usually replete with numerous challenges, the authors wanted to best serve the community by giving to those public schools that were in need of such interventions. The authors investigated the hypothesis that providing play therapy would improve academic achievement in first grade students. This was done using three measurements tools, 59 participants (a control and experimental group), and a research team of graduate assistants to see the children in individual play therapy. (Figure 1-Step 1).

Each school chosen was based on the designation of Title I qualification. Each participating school had one school counselor on staff; at times the ratio of counselor to student exceeded 1:500. Because the school counselors were also given the charge of standardized test coordinators, there were extreme burdens facing the individual who was also in charge of assisting the children emotionally. The authors realized the team could then assist the school with children who were experiencing various emotional maladies, freeing the school counselor to do guidance lessons and testing duties. As part of the research agreement, counselors in training would see first graders as well as other children in other grades who were in need of mental health services. This allowed the team to conduct research while also addressing one of the needs to the schools.

All of the materials used in the play therapy rooms were provided by the University as well as Parent/Teacher Associations (PTA). The schools were able to provide services to the children at no cost to the district. The authors had written several grants to obtain the necessary remuneration for cost of toys, art supplies, etc. The schools were able to provide space – sometimes an unused classroom; other times a converted storage room or even a closet.

The multicultural facets to such a study were considered. The team was able to provide services to African Americans, Asian Americans, Caucasians, and Latinos. While this demographic was not used in any of the subsequent research articles, the team addressed the population base of both the community at large as well as each school’s need.

The research itself lasted for the fall semester; however, the team stayed in each school for the entirety of the academic year. The schools were so pleased with the efforts of the authors and the team that we were asked to return the following academic year. Other schools in the district reached out to the authors to initiate a similar program in their schools; even some rural schools expressed an interest in receiving services.

Initiation of the Project: Establishing Connections

In actuality, it is beneficial to be aware of the process of submitting proposals to a school district. This method varies from district to district and state to state. Sometimes there are pre-existing


107


relationships in counseling or community programs that already use schools as practicum or internship training sites, and sometimes there are school counselors who remain professionally involved with university staff members, such as former student-professor relationships or membership in professional organizations and societies (Palladino-Schulthesis, 2005).

These relationships can often represent springboards for researchers and university or community professionals less familiar with the intricacies of school culture. Regardless of pre-established connections, discussing the possibility of research mandates a certain level of organization and preparedness. There may be a need to meet program goals, such as obtaining funds and getting approval from the school district and university review board.

Researchers have found that the most common factor in school resistance stems from attempts to apply research strategies that are incompatible with school culture. Therefore, reframing the discussion around childhood achievement was especially advantageous (Hooper & Britnell, 2012). Gaining the support of the school district primarily relates to a correlation which emphasizes the benefits and importance of the school’s role as a partner and co-creator and acknowledging and normalizing fears and concerns regarding time, resources, and the qualifications of the research team (Hooper & Britnell, 2012). By simultaneously conveying respect for the needs of the school and focusing on the advantages, such as more effective structures for delivering student services and additional time for school counselors and administrators, researchers are more likely to experience flexibility and openness on the part of school officials (Walsh, Barret, & DePaul, 2007). The authors had completed several projects on academic achievement and play therapy within the last five years; the research conducted provided results which suggested that there is a positive correlation between achievement and those students who participated in play therapy.

For university faculty, the establishment of this collaborative project was an arduous and time-consuming task. In terms of creating a viable and parametrically sound research design appropriate for working with children, these authors found that one of the more predominant but less acknowledged limitations relates directly to the availability, applicability, and affordability of assessment instruments. The choice to work with children requires special attention to assessment limitations, such as age or language limits, and the ability to find affordable, relevant instruments compatible with both research questions and targeted age groups is unexpectedly problematic.

For example, the authors chose to explore academic achievement, anxiety, and self-concept in first- and second-grade students using play therapy as a treatment modality within a pre-test/post-test research design. The decision for topic selection was rooted in three considerations: developmental appropriateness of the social-emotional measures, the cost and availability of assessments, and the language and age barriers stipulated by the instrument creators.

Following this structure, the university staff began initiating the procedures needed to deliver direct services to children in the schools. Developing a staff during this time will inevitability be essential to the approval process. Therefore, recruitment of team members began early in order to obtain the necessary paperwork for school volunteers and research requirements, such as human participants training courses, which may be needed for university and district approval. Frequently, proposed research projects struggle to meet the standards of qualified research review


108

boards, such as human subjects protection (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research ,1979). A common reason this transpires is due to different understandings or expectations of what research is or a lack of clarity in describing research procedures, informed consent, participant and researcher roles, and the potential for conflicts of interest (Kuriloff, Andrus, & Ravitch, 2011). By executing recruiting early, we found that once the schools were ready for our presence, we were able to immediately begin offering services.

The lead author of this work established relationships with the school district administration as well as with the school counselors employed at the various schools (Figure 1-Step 2). In fact, two of the three counselors were former students of the counseling program the lead author currently coordinates. The school superintendent was approached, as well as the director of counseling and each individual school admiration team (a significant number of meetings, Figure 1-Step 3). Once the schools were amenable to having our daily presence in their building, the authors moved to next step, recruitment of counselors in training (Figure 1 – Step 4).

The authors recruited research team members for the study by making announcements in graduate level counseling classes. This informal recruitment tool noted that this involvement offered nascent play therapists a chance to experience a research study as well as obtain hours necessary for graduation in the chosen discipline. The response was positive, though not every respondent was able to meet the hours needed to work with children in schools. The students who chose to participate filled out the necessary background checks, were approved by the school district, and met with the school counselor at the school to which they were assigned (Figure 1 – Steps 5-6).

The authors chose to provide ten weeks of bi-weekly play therapy treatment to children during the Fall semester and then, following post-test administration, provided play therapy to children in the control group and to those children recommended for therapeutic follow-up from the previous semester (Figure 1-Step 7). This is concordance with previous studies done regarding play therapy in the schools (Blanco & Ray, 2011; Muro, Ray, Shottelkorb, & Smith, 2006; Ray, Muro, & Shottelkorb, 2004).

The research team consisted of 20 play therapists in training (counselors-in-training) as well as the ensemble of authors. The authors conducted several training sessions for the administration of measurements, play therapy interventions (in conjunction with a semester long class), and paid assiduous attention to the checklist created by two of the authors (Blanco & Tsai, 2008) (Figure 1- Step 8).

Setting Up the Project: Preparing to Deliver Direct Services

Following the completion of district and university approval, school personnel and researchers began the process of identifying potential participants. At this stage, the selection process is dependent on consultation with viable vetted individuals who can assist in the communication process with teachers and parents. The authors collaborated with school counselors to meet with teachers, select classrooms, and administer letters and forms from the research team. (Figure 1-Step 9). Additionally, the university research team was oriented to the schools and trained in terms of school procedures and proper communication lines.


109


The Internal Review Boards (IRB), having authority to approve research involving human subjects, of the district and the university expedited the application process. The authors were prepared for any questions raised by either board and found the process easily resolved. The authors had completed several similar studies that mirrored this one; thus, there were several examples of previous reviews that were of invaluable assistance (Figure 1-Step 10).

It is important to mention that, when working with children, the informed consent process is filtered through assent (i.e. the child’s verbal agreement to participate) and formal parental consent (Bélanger & Connelly, 2007). Identifying possible elementary students who could participate in this study proved to be one of the more challenging aspects of this scholarship (Figure 1-Step 11). The authors met with every first grade teacher at each school to explain the research - a bi-weekly intervention to the experimental group of play therapy during the fall semester; the control group and the experimental group would receive weekly services in the spring semester. At times, teachers were reluctant to send home the consent forms, release their children form the classroom for the necessary 30 minutes sessions, or expected the counselors in training would be able to “fix” the problems the children were exhibiting in the classroom.

Some teachers were accepting of the presence of graduate student counselors in training, others could be at times hostile. We endeavored to be respectful of every teacher – we offered to speak to the PTA as well as the faculty at large following the analysis of results to our study. Some bristled at the fact that the sessions were being recorded – a necessity for the authors to supervise those beginning counselors and help them improve their Play Therapy Skills.

The informed consent letter is often comprised of summary points found within the IRB application, including: the purpose of study, time commitments, a description of the assessments, any potential risks and benefits, confidentiality and dissemination procedures, and researcher contact information. Upon receiving informed consent from parents, the researchers began administering pre-test assessment measures according to time availability. This is an important time to begin establishing warm, receptive, working relationships with teachers, who may still feel apprehension and ambiguity towards the research process. By conveying qualities of openness, consideration, accessibility, and flexibility, team members assisted the project by being an unobtrusive, supportive presence (Figure 1-Step 12). Upon completion of the pre-test instruments, the project then engaged in collaboration with teachers, team members, and other education providers to create a schedule and identify a room for counseling. Space in an elementary school is a valuable commodity, especially an area that requires sessions be private, unheard, and uninterrupted. Therefore, authors established furnished playrooms in large closets, portable classroom buildings, and multi-use storage rooms to ensure a dedicated, confidential therapeutic space (Stickley et al.,, 2013) (Figure 1-Step 13).

After pre-testing, the researchers began to score assessments (Figure 1-Step 14), assess viability of possible research participants, and assigned participants to groups, according to the research design. This project implemented an experimental treatment-waitlist control group design in which half the children received services immediately and the other half received therapeutic intervention services after post-test assessment. The subjects were assigned to groups regardless of their scores. During this stage researchers entered pre-test scores into a prepared database that


110

stored the data until posttest assessments were completed. The researchers coordinated with the school to create a schedule for the intervention for the treatment group. Coordinating the team member’s availability with that of the school staff can be a trying and difficult task given the seemingly interminable tugs on a school child’s schedule (Figure 1-Step 15). Schedules and policies vary somewhat from school to school, depending on the age group; therefore, it is important to note that consistency is particularly difficult during these times: the first or last few weeks of class, during grading or testing periods, near school holidays, and the occasional school-wide event, such as field trips or pageants (Kuriloff et al., 2009).

The authors were able to secure a sample size of 60 first graders in the three schools. (Figure 1-Step 16.) The pretesting commenced, with the counselors in training doing the significant amount of testing, though on occasion, the authors would be utilized if necessary. Upon completion of the testing, the team members were assigned their children (with coordination with the school counselors) – both the ones in the study and the ones who were not in first grade but being seen (Figure 1-Steps 17-18).

The authors then began the task of setting up the playrooms used in play therapy – done so the teachers could see it if they wanted, but to also be ready when the sessions began. This process of play room creation gave the counselors in training ownership – they were part of the team as well as being part of research that might contribute to children’s academic and emotional welfare. While we were setting up the play rooms, we also were able to give site training at the elementary schools to the counselors – policies of the schools, hallways, classroom locations, etc. –and introduce the counselors to the teachers and administrative staff (Figure 1-Step 19).

At this juncture, we had addressed more than half the step on the checklist.

Implementation of the Project: Providing and Maintaining

With the foundational work achieved, the research project moved into the next phase: securely positioning all counselors-in-training in the schools – usually done by a background check by local law enforcement. Following background checks and final approvals, the counselors-in-training are assigned their children and times for the counseling sessions (Figure 1-Step 20). The authors notified all invested parties that treatment was ready to begin (Figure 1-Step 21). The authors and counselors-in-training then began treatment (Figure 1-Step 22). Considering the consistent and reliable nature of the school environment and the need for additional child-based research, these projects have the potential to exist indefinitely therefore supporting working relationships throughout the school is essential. As the team conducted their therapeutic sessions, it was imperative to continue conveying a sense of involvement and receptiveness with teachers, parents and other school staff. Team members meet once a week to discuss any concerns, issues, or suggestions. Additionally, it was helpful to have university team members maintain the counseling room, ultimately reducing additional strain on school staff and demonstrating a sense of helpfulness and dedication. (Figure 1-Step 23.)

As mentioned previously, the authors in this article chose to employ master’s level counseling students as both researchers and play therapists. Supervision included integrating professional


111


awareness and clinical skills into practice while also continuously therapeutic relationships (Ray, 2004). The process of self-reflection, continual exploration, and systematic critique of their work were common charges (Kuriloff, Andrus, & Ravitch, 2011). The authors would routinely contact

Figure 1. School Research Project Checklist

School Research Project Checklist Considerations for School Research:

What needs to be done for School District and/or University

√ Implementations School University 1. □ Decide the school research topic √ 2. □ Find school connection (school counselor/principle) √ 3. □ Discuss possibility of conducting school research √ √ 4. □ Get approval from school district (be aware this process might

take several weeks) √

5. □ Develop research team (trainees/therapist) √ 6. □ Have research team members fill out the volunteer background

application √

7. □ Create the research design √ 8. □ Have research team members complete the Human Participant

Protections Education online course √

9. □ Develop informed consent forms (students/parents/teachers) √ 10. □ Complete and obtain approval from the Institutional Review

Board (IRB) √

11. □ Identify possible participants (create sample) √ 12. □ Distribute consent forms to participants √ 13. □ Give out pre-test assessments to participant who have given

consent √

14. □ Score pre-testing √ 15. □ Coordinate team member’s availability and develop schedule for

sessions. √

16. □ Screen out participants, and assign randomly to groups (This varies upon research design).

√

17. □ Inform school contact of who needs to be scheduled for play sessions vs. those who are identified to receive services later.

√

18. □ Have members of the research team offer assistance to the school contact in scheduling sessions.

√

19. □ Set up the counseling room. √ √ 20. □ Offer training to research team. This includes orienting the

therapists to the school, the research contact, and school procedures.

√

21. □ Have school contact inform teachers that the project is ready to begin.

√

22. □ Begin treatment. √ √ 23. □ Conduct a weekly meeting with research team to discuss

concerns. √

24. □ Check in with school contact weekly to discuss concerns. √ 25. □ Have research team become responsible for maintaining

playroom and preserving therapeutic environment. √ √

26. □ Complete counseling sessions. √ 27. □ Have therapist create recommendations of participant. √ 28. □ Begin post-testing. √ 29. □ Score post testing, analyze data and interpret results. √ 30. □ Meet with principal and school contact and discuss results. √ √ 31. □ Discuss future projects with school contact. √ √ Figure 1. School Research Project Checklist


112

school officials to ensure there were no concerns, though this was not performed as frequently as needed. (Figure 1-Step 24.) The counselors-in-training were given the charge of ensuring a clean, safe, welcoming play therapy room was presented to all participating children. Therefore, there were consistent cleanings and organizing of the play materials (Figure 1-Step 25).

Sessions were conducted and completed within the allotted time allowed. Counselors –in-training made summary reports to parents, giving an explanation of treatment and possible further counseling if needed. (Figure 1-Step 26-27.) The authors and the counselors in training then began the post testing of all participants (Figure 1-Step 28).

Aftercare of the Project: Disseminating Results and Planning for the Future

Once we completed all of the sessions by early December, the authors began the process of post testing and analyzing the results (Figure 1-Step 29). University researchers scheduled a meeting with the school contact to discuss the results and any potential for projects in the future (Figure 1-Step 30). It is therefore recommended to own the results and prepare for the possibility of rejection when meeting (Kuriloff et al., 2009). It was reasonable that teachers might fear that they would be scrutinized or identified as less competent based on their students’ scores, while, likewise, administrators assumed that they have an invested interest in receiving only positive results (Borthwick, Stirling, Nauman, & Cook, 2003; Kuriloff, Andrus, & Ravitch, 2011). By owning the results and acknowledging and normalizing these fears, researchers were in a position to assist school administrators and teachers who may be resistant to acknowledging necessary improvement. As noted earlier, the authors offered to speak at various school events. The authors were approached to speak at Parent Teacher Associations as well as elementary school faculty meetings. While the authors have only spoke at two (one PTA, one faculty meeting), the questions posited by those in attendance seem to follow some similar themes: is it possible to have more sessions with more students? Is it affecting other facets of behavior beyond academic achievement? Is there any supporting data that the improvement in academic achievement is related to classroom instruction? The meetings were well attended, with nearly 40 teachers, administrators, and administrative staff at the faculty meeting, close to 70 at the PTA. The authors were not met with any discouraging comments; in fact, many of the attendees were quite supportive and wanted their children to participate in similar studies. We listened to feedback as to how we could strengthen our part in the process, and we offered suggestions to ensure less inconveniences. A new study is now underway, in the same schools with the addition of one new one, and is being planned for the next academic year as well (Figure 1 – Step 31).

Research projects such as these provide the wealth of data needed to publish several empirically based research articles. The university team members were challenged with the task of writing an articulate and concise paper that adequately showcases the problem at-hand and benefits of the approach while clearly delineating the research procedure and results. These authors found that researchers can narrow their choices of academic journals and publications by closely examining their mission statements and previous relevant publications to find those that align with the article’s research goals.


113


Additionally, university professionals and counseling students can be afforded professional development opportunities by submitting proposals to professional organizations for conference presentations. By sharing findings and experiences within related professional organizations and societies, universities can increase awareness and knowledge of their approach, contribute to current counseling practice, and promote the university at-large. These types of experiences contribute to the vitality of both the school and the university and create valuable experiences for counseling students (Borthwick et al.,2003).

Once the research team settled in at the schools, minor problems were encountered. For example, one teacher who did not see children’s behavior improve within the first month of this intervention began to act as a hindrance to the counselors’-in- training efforts. Another issue noted was non-English speaking pupils. Some children spoke only Spanish which limited the researchers’ capacity to give feedback to the counselors-in-training since there was a lack of understanding of what the child was saying in the recorded sessions. The authors learned a valuable lesson; when selecting subjects, the use of English speaking subjects only or a bilingual supervisor is important.

The authors of this work have completed several articles related to this study as well– at the time of this article there were six manuscripts under review by various journals, such as the Journal of Research Administration, the International Journal of Play Therapy, the Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling and the British Journal of Play Therapy.

The collaboration with the schools has resulted in the authors being sought by other schools in the district as well as rural school districts, to develop a similar therapeutic intervention program as described in this paper.

The Data and Analysis

The data proved to be rich with opportunities to examine academic achievement with students who receive play therapy services. There was a statistically significant increase in the experimental group (n=29) on the Early Achievement Composite of the Young Children’s Achievement Test (YCAT) when compared with the children on the waitlist control group (n=30). From pretest to posttest, students who participated in play therapy scored statistically higher on the Early Achievement Composite than those in the waitlisted control group. On the basis of mean scores from pretest to posttest on the Early Achievement Composite, the play therapy group had a 5.42 increase in their mean scores compared with a 1.9 point increase for the waitlist control group. These were better than expected. However, it bears noting that according to Green and Christensen (2006) children who participated in play therapy had higher levels confidence. Nonetheless, the authors were pleased in seeing fruition in a work that was temporally consuming.

Of course, a larger sample size would have been welcomed, though the authors were limited with time, space, and available counselors-in-training. A larger budget would have been of great assistance; as noted earlier, all sessions were recorded and the counselors-in-training were forced to use their own equipment. An increase in funding would have also allowed for the authors to hire outside supervisors for the counselors-in-training, thereby allowing the authors to attend to more administrative details as well as preparing literature reviews for upcoming documents.


114

With so many people having a stake in this project (parents, school counselors, school administrators, district administrators and the authors), a more streamlined form of communication would have been of great benefit. In fact, as the authors prepare another study, they were able to procure support for a graduate assistant whose responsibility is to communicate with all parties involved.

Summary: In Conclusion

While there exists an extensive literature regarding university-school collaborations, all of which differ in their approach and purpose in writing, most simply provide suggestions, recommendations, and delineations of characteristics regarding successful collaboration between organizations (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004; Borthwick, Stirling, & Cook, 2000; Bryan & Henry, 2012; DeVaney & Brendel, 2001; Espido-Bello, 2006; Hooper & Brandt-Britnell, 2012; Kuriloff et al., 2009). Many of these articles shared common suggestions, such as creating a blue print with written descriptions of each member’s role for the organization of the project, and yet there seems to be an absence of clear, concise, instructive material intended for propagation (DeVaney & Brendel, 2001). The primary purpose of this article was to meet that very need. The School Research Project Checklist (Figure 1) inventories the implementations and considerations needed for both the school and university in order to create convergence for school, community, and university professionals alike. Although these resources may give the impression of isolated responsibilities or clear divisions, there are many responsibilities that mandate continuous communication and cooperation in order to ensure that goals and responsibilities remain shared and mutual. University-school collaboration projects symbolize the harmony and unity envisioned in the positivistic ambition of creating holistic approaches to enhancing the lives of all children as well as providing necessary data that can assist meaning making in the collaborative research project(s).

Acknowledgement

The authors are indebted to all the colleagues in the Counseling and Development component of the Family Sciences Department, Texas Woman’s University, who have contributed to the success of the writing and execution of the publication in the Journal of Research Administration. Special thanks to Dr. Lamar Muro for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. This article was done in conjunction with the “Play Project” at Texas Woman’s University, led by Drs. Pedro Javier Blanco and Ryan R.B. Holliman. Correspondence should be addressed to Joel H. Muro, Texas Woman’s University, Department of Family Sciences, P.O. Box 425769, Denton, TX 76204 or [email protected].

Dr. Joel H. Muro, LPCAssociate Professor and Counseling CoordinatorDepartment of Family SciencesTexas Woman’s University304 Administrative Drive TWU Denton, Texas 76204Telephone: 940 898 2705Email: [email protected]


115


Victoria StickleyDoctoral Student425 South Welch StreetDepartment of Counseling and Higher EducationUniversity of North TexasCollege of Education, Matthews Hall, Room 214, 1300 West Highland StreetDenton, Texas 76203

Dr. Lamar Muro, LPC, CITAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Family SciencesTexas Woman’s University304 Administrative Drive TWU Denton, Texas 76204Email: [email protected]

Dr. Pedro J. Blanco, LPC-S, RPT-SAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Family SciencesTexas Woman’s University304 Administrative Drive TWU Denton, Texas 76204Email: [email protected]

Dr. Mei-Hsiang Tsai, LCP, RPTAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Counseling and GuidanceNational University of TainanAddress: 33, Sec. 2, Shu-Lin St. Tainan, Taiwan 700Telephone: 886-2-2133111#738Email: [email protected]


116

References

Anderson-Butcher, D., & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative models of collaboration to serve children, youths, families, and communities. Children & Schools, 26(1), 39-53.

Bélanger, N., & Connelly, C. (2007). Methodological considerations in child-centered research about social difference and children experiencing difficulties at school. Ethnography & Education, 2(1), 21-38. doi:10.1080/17457820601158994

Blanco, P. J., & Ray, D. C. (2011). Play therapy in elementary schools: a best practice for improving academic achievement. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(2), 235-243.

Blanco, P & Tsai, M (2008, February 29). Implementing Research in Elementary Schools: A Guide to University and School District Collaboration. Texas Association for Counseling

Education and Supervision. Austin, TX. (Peer reviewed poster presentation).

Borthwick, A. C., Stirling, T., & Cook, D. (2000). Achieving successful school-university collaboration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Borthwick, A. C., Stirling, T., Nauman, A. D., and Cook, D. L. (2003). Achieving successful school-university collaboration. Urban Education, 38(3), 330-371.

Bryan, J., & Henry, L. (2012). A model for building school-family-community partnerships: Principles and process. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90(4), 408-420. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2012.00052.x

Coburn, C. E., Bae, S., & Turner, E. O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider-outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education (0161956X), 83(3), 364-399. doi:10.1080/01619560802222350

DeVaney, S. B., & Brendel, J. M. (2001). A school/university partnership: Insights on effective collaboration. TCA Journal, 29(2), 132-139.

Espido-Bello, E. (2006). Initiating a collaborative action research project: From choosing a school to planning the work on an issue. Educational Action Research, 14(1), 3-21. doi:10.1080/09650790600585194

Evans, S. W., & Weist, M. D. (2004). Commentary: Implementing empirically supported treatments in the schools: What are we asking? Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 7(4), 263-267. doi:10.1007/s10567-004-6090-0


117


Fall, M., & VanZandt, C. (1997). Partners in research: School counselors and counselor educators working together. Professional School Counseling, 1(1), 2-3.

Green, E. & Christensen, T. (2006). Elementary school children’s perceptions of play therapy in school setting. International Journal of Play Therapy, 15(1), 65-85.

Hooper, L. M., & Brandt Britnell, H. (2012). Mental health research in K—12 schools: Translating a systems approach to university-school partnerships. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90(1), 81-90.

Kuriloff, P. J., Andrus, S. H., & Ravitch, S. M. (2011). Messy ethics: Conducting moral participatory action research in the crucible of university-school relations. Mind, Brain, And Education, 5(2), 49-62.

Kuriloff, P., Reichert, M., Stoudt, B., & Ravitch, S. (2009). Building research collaborative among schools and universities: Lessons from the field. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(1), 34-44. doi: DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.01051.x

Muro, J., Ray, D., Shottlekorb, A. & Smith, M. (2006). Quantitative analysis of long-term Child-centered play therapy. International Journal of Play Therapy, 15(20, p. 35-58.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Palladino-Schultheiss, D. E. (2005). University-urban school collaboration in school counseling. Professional School Counseling, 8(4), 330-336.

Ray, D. (2004). Supervision of basic and advanced skills in play therapy. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 32(2), 28-41.

Ray, D., Muro, J, & Schumann, B (2004). Play Therapy in the schools: Significant learnings. International Journal of Play Therapy, 13(1), p. 79-100.

Stickley, V.K., Muro, J.H., and Blanco, P.J. (2013). Collaborating university play therapy programs with elementary schools-Alleviating school counselor stress. Open Journal of Education, 1(5), p. 143-147. doi: 10.12966/oje.09.03.2013

Walsh, M. E., Barrett, J. G., & DePaul, J. (2007). Day-to-day activities of school counselors: Alignment with new directions in the field and the ASCA national model. Professional School Counseling, 10(4), 370-378.


118 Nebeker, Linares-Orozco, Crist

A Multi-Case Study Of Research Using Mobile Imaging, Sensing And Tracking Technologies To Objectively Measure Behavior: Ethical Issues And Insights To Guide Responsible Research Practice

Camille Nebeker, EdD, MSSchool of Medicine, UC San Diego

Rubi Linares-Orozco, BA, MAScUC San Diego

Katie Crist, MPH UC San Diego

Abstract

Introduction: The increased availability of mobile sensing technologies is creating a paradigm shift for health research by creating new opportunities for measuring and monitoring behavior. For example, researchers can now collect objective information about a participant’s daily activity using wearable devices that have: 1- Global Positioning System (GPS) to capture location; 2- an outwardly facing camera to document environmental and social context; and, 3- an accelerometer to measure activity levels. While these technologies may offer more accurate means of measuring and understanding behavior, they introduce potential privacy and data security risks for participants as well as for bystanders. The aim of this study was to describe potential risks and risk management strategies in studies using visual imaging and location logging (GPS) data collection methods.

Methods: Eight Institutional Review Board (IRB) research protocol applications that included visual imaging and/or GPS data collection methods were identified. Each research protocol application and IRB determination letter was analyzed with the a priori themes of identification of risks (e.g., privacy concerns, data security) and risk management strategies (e.g., disclosure, firewalls) associated with each device.

Results: Visual imaging was proposed in four of the eights studies. GPS was included in all eight studies. Geographic Information System (GIS) technology was proposed in all but one study to improve analytics. The findings reveal that: 1) IRBs are grappling with how to consider the rights of bystanders who may be imaged by virtue of being near a research participant; 2) IRBs may not be sufficiently aware of potential risks associated with collection of location data should a data breach occur; and, 3) while research plans incorporated consistent descriptions of each device and associated potential risks, IRB determination letters revealed inconsistent perception of potential study risks.

119


Nebeker, Linares-Orozco, Crist

Conclusions: This paper sheds light on ethical issues when using visual imaging and location logging technologies in research. We have exposed concerns and presented management strategies. Questions remain as to whether the risk management strategies are effective and, under what circumstances researchers and IRBs should consider location logging as sensitive data. Empirical research is needed to inform guidelines to enhance the ethical design and conduct of research involving visual imaging and location logging.

Keywords: research ethics, pervasive imaging, wearable camera, location logging, GPS, human subjects

Introduction

To objectively measure health behaviors (e.g., physical activity, sedentary behavior, and diet), researchers are increasingly turning to mobile imaging, sensing and tracking devices to record and/or intervene with health behaviors (Cole-Lewis & Kershaw, 2010; Doherty, Kelly, Kerr, et al., 2012; Kerr, Marshall, Godbole, et al., 2013; Kumar, Nilsen, Abernathy et al., 2013; Krishna, Boren, & Balas, 2009; Jankowska, Schipperijn & Kerr, 2015). This research involves devices (i.e., smart phones, wearable cameras, GPS, skin sensors etc.) that can monitor activity, location, and assorted physiological functions (Ibid). By understanding behavior in context, researchers can design interventions utilizing individual data that more accurately reflects exposure and risk and thus, may be more effective at promoting health (Kumar, Nilsen, Abernathy et al., 2013). While technology may improve measurement accuracy and increase the ability to develop and deliver more personalized interventions, the granularity of the data collected also introduces unique potential risks regarding participant privacy and confidentiality should data security be compromised. To advance this important and innovative research in a responsible manner, researchers and ethics board members must be prepared to effectively evaluate and mitigate risks to both participants and bystanders who may be included in the research record by virtue of their proximity to a research participant (Cox, Drew, Guillemin et al., 2014; Kelly, Marshall, Badland et al., 2013).

Since there is little empirical evidence to guide the ethical conduct or review of research involving mobile imaging, sensing and tracking, what we are calling “MIST” methods, researchers may find the IRB protocol development and review process to be challenging. Likewise, IRB members may be unfamiliar with these technologies prompting confusion about what actions are necessary and appropriate to enhance human subject protections. For one group of researchers, inconsistent IRB review outcomes led to a meeting with the lead author, an IRB member, to discuss the application of federal regulations and ethical practices designed to enhance research participant protections. The meeting objective was to discuss ethical challenges associated with visual imaging and location logging methods used in their studies. These challenges focused on informed consent (i.e., how much detail to include?), rights of bystanders (i.e., the camera will capture people who are not study subjects) and data management (i.e., how should images or location information be stored? when and how can imaging data be shared and with whom?) and led to the planning of several pilot studies designed to explore these challenges. The study reported here involved a review of IRB documents (e.g., research protocols, IRB determination letters) to examine how the local IRB considered risks and risk management strategies associated with visual imaging and location logging methods.

120

We selected visual imaging because of the likelihood for a non-research participant to be included in the research record and location logging because of the potential threats to privacy. This paper describes: 1) how visual imaging and location logging devices were used in research studies, 2) what concerns and risk management strategies were identified, and 3) suggestions for responsible research practices using location-logging and visual imaging methods.

Measuring Activity in the Built Environment

Researchers are using imaging and location logging methods to objectively contextualize participant activity. Data collected from the SenseCam wearable, automated camera (Vicon Review v1.0), a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device (Qstarz BT1000X), and activity monitors (Actigraph GT3X+) provide researchers with information about participant activity in the context of their daily lives including the intensity and duration, location and the social and environmental context in which participants are active. A description of these devices follows:

Visual Imaging Methods

The use of visual imaging methods in research is not new (Cox, Drew, Guillemin et al., 2014). In fact, the social sciences have used photography and drawings to document ideas, the environment and abstract phenomena for years (Ibid). Digital imaging has made it possible for researchers to document travel, physical activity and nutrition by having research participants wear an outwardly facing camera on a lanyard around their neck (Doherty, Kelly, Kerr, et al., 2012; Doherty, Kelly, Kerr, et al., 2013; Kerr, Marshall, Godbole, et al., 2013; Oliver, Doherty, Kelly, et al., 2013). The automated, wearable camera has multiple sensors including a thermometer, a passive infrared sensor, and a light sensor so that it will take a picture when one of these elements has changed (See Figure 1). The purpose is to capture first person point-of-view images that provide rich contextual data, matched by time stamp to behaviors of interest (Figure 2). The automatic imaging generates up to 3,000 images per day. Image data on the device is encrypted so that the content is not viewable to anyone outside of the research team. These images are later coded and analyzed to qualify and quantify behaviors in the settings in which the behaviors occur, for example, walking outdoors with others.


Figure 1. SenseCam used to capture first person point of view

Figure 2. Image captured by SenseCam demonstrating the participant perspective

121


Location Logging Methods

For health applications where location is of interest (e.g., understanding environments where individuals are physically active, monitoring dementia patients’ locations, measuring spatial components of disease transmission), the emergence of GPS as a research tool offers the opportunity to objectively link health outcomes or measures to specific geographic coordinates. According to PubMed citations, studies using GPS have more than tripled between 2007 and 2013 (52 in 2007, 182 in 2013). Spatial data provides the opportunity for assessing context in which behavior is occurring, as well as identifying underlying spatial relationships such as clustering or transmission pathways.

The GPS device used in activity measurement studies is the size of a small pager and worn on a participant’s belt (see Figure 3). Geographic Information System (GIS) software can provide context to the GPS data providing details about the environment (e.g., density, restaurants, green space, etc.). Metrics derived from the combined GIS and GPS data can be associated with health outcome data allowing researchers to answer specific questions about the relationship between environment and health. For example, researchers can identify whether most physical activity occurs near the participant’s home or in a nearby park to establish relationships between differing environments and activities. Likewise, researchers can identify the actual activity (running, sitting), social context (other people present) and environmental conditions (sun or rain).

Participants wear the GPS device on a belt around their waist (See Figure 3), which generates data showing location throughout the day; however, for the studies evaluated, the devices do not allow for real time transmission of data. An image showing a sample of GPS traces is in Figure 4.


Figure 3. Wearable GPS Figure 4. Example of GPS traces

Ethical Challenges

Given the relative novelty, yet growing interest, in using MIST devices to record behaviors, we sought to describe concerns being raised by both researchers and IRB members. An overarching goal was to identify issues as well as strategies that can be used by researchers and IRB members


to enhance the ethical design, review and implementation of research involving wearable sensors. This case study focused on imaging and location logging data collection methods due to the documented challenges for researchers and IRB members. The wearable camera automatically takes a picture at approximately 20-second intervals of what is in view of the participant. This method raises concerns about participant privacy as well as the rights of bystanders who are in the vicinity of the research participant and who are likely to be imaged (See Figures 5 and 6).

Figure 5. Participant point of view in a public setting

Figure 4. Participant point of view in an office setting

Questions associated with the visual imaging method of data collection include: 1) under what circumstances should a research participant disclose that the device is recording (i.e., at home? meeting friends for lunch? during a conference or meeting?); 2) how should data be handled that contains images of non-participants?; 3) at a time where surveillance is round the clock, should images be treated as sensitive data?; and, 4) what is the researcher’s obligation to report illegal behaviors recorded by the device?

GPS data is granular and provides exact longitude and latitude at a specific point in time. While providing fantastic opportunities for researchers, this data may present significant privacy and security risks for the participants who wear the devices if the data security is compromised. For example, sports tracking applications (i.e., Strava (see: http://www.strava.com), Endomondo (see: https://www.endomondo.com)) are worn by cyclists and joggers to map exercise routes using GPS. The data identifies the route (e.g., where the activity started) as well as the temporal characteristics of when that activity started and stopped and mobile app users often share their routines with others. This disclosure can facilitate crime (Stottelar, Senden & Montoya, 2014) and led police in the UK to warn cyclists to check their smart phone privacy after suspecting thieves used GPS information to track down and steal 370 bicycles (Strege, 2013). Examples like this demonstrate the potential risk posed by GPS data collected for health research, and the profound need to discuss the sensitivity and required protection of GPS data. As noted, visual imaging and location logging are not new technologies; however, they are relatively new methods being used in social and behavioral sciences research studies to replace self-report or observation.

123



Methods

Since this study was exploratory in nature we conducted a multi-case analysis approach (Yin, 2009). The case study method is useful for exploring contemporary issues within real-life context and requires that decisions be made a priori to guide the study design including selection of cases and units of analysis (Meyer, 2001). For this study, we collaborated with local researchers and identified eight research studies that included visual imaging and/or location logging methods as our cases. The units of analysis were perceived risks and acceptable risk management strategies specific to the two devices across the eight studies. Each research record included the following source documents: 1) a research plan, including informed consent content, prepared by the researcher, 2) initial review determination correspondence prepared on behalf of an IRB, 3) the investigator response to a review determination, and 4) the IRB response to the researcher.

Each study protocol or “case” was printed and independently reviewed by two authors (CN and RO). The process for document review involved reading each study source document entirely. This was followed by a second review that included highlighting of content that specifically addressed visual imaging and GPS use. Concurrent with highlighting text, analytic memos were recorded for each study protocol prior to initiating review of the next case. Case details and analytic comments were recorded in a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet and a Microsoft Word® document. Notations included a description of the study design, participant characteristics, review dates, device type, risks, benefits and risk management strategies identified by the researcher to initiate IRB review and stipulations determined by the IRB to secure approval. Themes and patterns were identified based on frequency of appearance across protocol reviews and discussed by the authors to ensure consistency in individual coding and agreement in interpretation. Discrepancies were resolved through additional review of the data and discussion between the study authors. Project managers responsible for development and management of a specific research study were consulted when needed for clarification.

Results

The eight cases evaluated shared a common purpose of assessing lifestyle behaviors, the environmental context and the relationship to health. All included the use of GPS to record location coordinates and time data about a participants’ location and accelerometry to measure physical activity and sedentary behavior. Four studies proposed to have participants wear a camera to capture specific behaviors (i.e., sitting watching television, running in a park) as well as environmental context (e.g., indoor/outdoor, weather, greenery). Five studies requested approval to include GIS to increase contextual knowledge of the location data. Study participants included both children and adults ranging in age from 6 to 102. With one exception unrelated to the imaging and GPS/GIS methods, studies involving the automated, wearable camera and/or location logging devices were determined by the IRB to present no greater than minimal risk of harm to research subjects. Table 1 identifies the study design, device use and participant age range.

A description of each case follows along with a summary of the IRB review determination specific to the visual imaging and GPS components of each case. Studies reviewed in this analysis were grouped and coded by the person identified as Principal Investigator (PI) and numbered


sequentially (e.g., studies A1-A3 represent three studies being conducted by the same investigator). There were five different PIs for the cases included in this analysis; however, one investigator with interests in objective measurement of physical activity was involved in all studies accounting for the consistency in how elements of the study plan (e.g., informed consent, risks, benefits, risk management, etc.) were communicated across each case study.

1. Study A1 was a cross-sectional observational study assessing the relationship between participants’ environment and cancer risk. The study would also compare static and dynamic GPS/GIS measurements. A total of 700 adult participants would wear two activity monitors and a GPS device (waking hours) for seven days. A subset of 50 participants would wear a SenseCam to explore whether “social interactions & social behaviors from person view images are more strongly related to … cancer risk factors than self-reported social environment measures.” Risks were described as minimal. The research plan did not describe risks associated with visual imaging. An excerpt from the research plan describing risks, risk management and the protocol for data management follows:

“Potential Risks. Subjects may experience 1) anxiety or embarrassment related to answering questions about one’s health or to the measurement process; 2) concern for privacy related to divulging personal information on the survey or loss of confidentiality if a computer is accessed by an unauthorized person; 3) participants may experience discomfort or a sense of loss of privacy as a result of revealing their exact location while wearing the GPS device for seven continuous days. GIS analysis will enrich the contextual understanding of participants’ movements. This increased knowledge of the surrounding environment may provide more information about participants’ habits and behaviors that they may wish to keep confidential; 4) discomfort from wearing any of the devices.”

Table 1. Description of cases analyzed and IRB concern specific to the devices of interest.

ID Study Design Camera GPS GIS Participants Age IRB Concern

A1 Observation N (w) Y Y Adults 40-75 Camera Bystander privacy

A2 Observation Y Y N Minors/Adults

6-85 None

A3 Group RCT N Y Y Older Adults 65+ GIS Participant consent

B1 Observational Y Y Y Hispanic Adults

18+ Camera Bystander privacy

B2 RCT N Y Y Adults 21-60 GPS Data security

C1 RCT N Y N (w) Women 21+ GIS Participant consent

D1 Prospective Cohort

Y Y N Adults 18+ None

E1 RCT N Y Y Women 50+ None

Y=Yes; N=No; (w) indicates device withdrawn from research plan after initial IRB review

125



“Risk Management Procedures and Adequacy of Resources. Participants will be informed that all responses and data collected from the GPS device will be kept confidential within the research team, and that no material that could personally identify them will be used in any reports or publications from this study. It will be explained to the subjects in clear terms, both verbally and in the written consent form, that their precise whereabouts for the entire time period the GPS device is worn will be known by the research staff. Any potential risks of embarrassment or privacy due to GIS analysis is mitigated by developing environmental measures and indices from the GIS analysis that solely deal with physical activity and eating habits. No other environmental measures that may be indicative for other behaviors will be created. Additionally, environmental measures created from the GIS analysis will be used in statistical modeling at the group level only, and will not be individually mapped or visualized for publication purposes.”

“Privacy and Confidentiality Considerations Including Data Access and Management. We have established an extensive protocol to protect participants’ privacy. We will keep informed consent statements and participant data in separate locked file cabinets so that individuals are not easily connected to the study results. All sensor data will be stored on a firewall and password-protected project server at the [university]. All subject records and data will be stripped of individual identifiers following data collection. We will assign each person a study ID and all records will be coded with the study ID rather than personal identifiers. The code that links the study ID and the name will be stored in a separate place than the data file until all of the measurements are complete. At that point, the personal information will be destroyed and all analyses will be conducted with the data set that has no personal identifiers. All data will be kept in locked cabinets at the study office, accessible only by investigators and project staff. Participants will also be told about the confidentiality procedures and that they have the right to refuse to answer questions or to terminate their participation in the study at any time. Finally, participant data will not be sold or exchanged with anyone and data sharing as per NIH requirements will be performed within strict protocol-driven procedural guidelines.”

Review Outcome. Upon review of this study, the IRB determined that additional detail specific to the SenseCam was necessary citing potential legal concerns and bystander rights to privacy. No concerns were voiced specific to the use of GPS or GIS. Other comments were limited to minor clarifications of the study plan. In response, the investigator addressed the IRB concerns; however, in lieu of providing additional information about the camera, the sub-study portion of the protocol in which the SenseCam was proposed was withdrawn.

2. A2 was an observational study to validate machine-learned classifiers of sedentary behavior and physical activity using data collected with an accelerometer and GPS. A total of 210 participants would represent three age groups that include youth age 6-17; adults age 18-65; and older adults age 65+. Over a three-day period, participants would complete a survey and wear two accelerometers, one GPS device and one SenseCam. Risks were described as minimal. Risk management included choices to not participate and options for removing the devices during the study. Extensive detail was provided for instructing the participant about when and where to remove the camera, when to use the privacy options and under what circumstances the participant


should request permission to wear the camera. Likewise, details were provided regarding steps taken by the research team to protect participant privacy and data confidentiality. Excerpts specific to risk and risk management strategies proposed by the researcher follow:

“Potential Risks. Risks to participants in this study are considered minimal. However, there is a possibility of some physical, psychological, social, economic and legal risk. Physical risks include a chance of physical injury if a device bruises the participant as a result of an incidental fall. Psychological risks include embarrassment or anxiety over the type of images being captured about daily life. Social or economic risks include a possibility of being teased or ridiculed by peers for wearing the devices or being socially excluded; or as a result of a breach of confidentiality of personally identifiable data. Economic or legal risks include researchers finding out that a participant has engaged in an illegal behavior (e.g., shoplifting, grievous bodily harm) from the image capture.”

“Risk Management Strategies and Adequacy of Resources. They [Participants] will also be asked to remove the camera or cover the lens in environments where camera phones are not permitted (locker rooms, public restrooms, etc.). Finally, participants will be given an opportunity to delete any images they do not wish to be seen by researchers prior to the files being stored for analysis…”

Review Outcome: The IRB determination letter did not identify any concerns related to the GPS or SenseCam methods. The research was approved pending the correction of minor inconsistencies within the research plan and consent forms.

3. A3 was a group randomized control design involving retirement community sites. The study objective was to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention to increase minutes of physical activity among older adults. Participants, 320 men and women who are 65 or older wear an activity monitor and GPS device at least 10 hours per day over 7-days. Risks were described as minimal and include the potential for embarrassment if privacy was breached. Study risks were managed by recognizing the sensitivity of the location data and emphasizing practices to securely store location data. The study was later modified to include GIS to enhance the analysis of the GPS data. The investigator explained that GPS provides information about “where participants walk” by providing coordinate and time data. By adding GIS, the “analysis will enrich the contextual understanding of participant’s movements.”

Review Outcome: The IRB approved this study noting no concerns for the use of GPS. When the study was modified to include GIS the IRB asked the investigator to modify the consent form to include this new analysis or to provide “justification for not informing subjects.” The investigator explained that the approved consent form included an appropriate description of granularity of location detail collected using GPS and that GIS analysis was consistent with this explanation. The researcher expressed concern that re-contacting participants to obtain consent was an added burden that did not equate to added participant protections and may result in participant confusion rather than added clarity. The IRB responded by accepting the researcher’s rationale and approved the request to add GIS analytics without requiring additional contact with former study participants.

127



4. B1 was a validation study involving 40 adults who identify as Latino. During this seven- day study, participants would wear a visual imaging device called a Vicon Review, a GPS to log location and an accelerometer to record activity level. In addition, participants completed two phone interviews and one written survey. The risks, risk management strategies and practices to enhance privacy and confidentiality were nearly identical to those described in study “A2” (see above).

Review Outcome. The IRB determination letter cited concern for non-participant privacy and concluded that there was “not a reasonable balance of risks to the subjects and the people they encounter to the research value of the information about personal level activity for a specific population” and “could not reach a final determination concerning this protocol.” After several communications between the investigator and IRB in which concerns over image capture of bystanders and potential breaches to confidentiality are discussed, the study was approved. The consent form and research plan were modified to include additional risks and limits to confidentiality.

The following language was included in the Research Plan, in addition to exact text used in case A1 (see above) to describe privacy and confidentiality practices:

“Privacy and Confidentiality Considerations Including Data Access and Management. In order to protect the confidentiality of third parties, we treat all data with the same data security measures as PHI data. As image data is annotated by research staff, images that show places where a reasonable expectation of privacy is accepted (i.e. banks, restrooms, locker rooms, hospitals, and medical and treatment center) will be deleted. After image data is completely annotated, the image files will be destroyed and only the annotations will be used in data analysis.”

The following language was included in the informed consent document to describe study risks and confidentiality of data.

“Potential Risks. The risks involved in this study are minimal. Participation in this study may involve some physical discomfort to you from wearing the devices. You may also experience discomfort or a sense of loss of privacy as a result of revealing your location and daily activities for seven days to researchers or answering survey questions. You may feel discomfort wearing the Vicon Revue because it takes images of what you are doing throughout the day. You are free to remove the camera at any stage, and there is a privacy button you can press to stop the camera recording for 4 minutes. Also you will be able to review the images and delete any you do not wish researchers to see. You can discontinue participation at any time. There may also be concern for privacy related to revealing personal information or the loss of confidentiality if an unauthorized person accesses device data. There may also be some unknown risks that are currently unforeseeable.

Images captured by the Vicon Revue device that show instances of assault and abusive conduct, including abuse or neglect of children, elderly or dependent adults will be reported along with contact information.”

“Confidentiality. Research records will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Research records may be reviewed by the [university] Institutional Review Board


and the [funding agency]. All responses and data collected from the devices will be kept confidential within the research team, and no material that could personally identify you will be used in any reports or publications from this study. Your data will be stored appropriately in locked cabinets and on a secure computer server in order to minimize the risk of loss of confidentiality. All information collected for this research that is stored on our secure computer will be identified by subject ID number only. Results of this study may be reported in scientific journals, meeting, and news media. None of these reports will use your name or use data that can point to any person who took part in the study. Strict security measures will be taken to insure that none of these procedures results in release of any information you provide us.

Several aspects of the procedure are designed to safeguard your rights and privacy as a participant. The Vicon Revue is equipped with two methods to deactivate the camera at any time, should you want your activities to remain private (i.e., certain places, times, or situations). The two methods are:

1) The Vicon Revue has an ON/OFF button for complete deactivation (off ) or reactivation (on).

2) The Vicon Revue has a “DO NOT DISTURB” button, which will put the camera into “DO NOT DISTURB” mode. In this mode, the camera will remain on but absolutely no images will be taken. The Vicon Revue will stop taking pictures for 4 minutes, and will alert you with a beep 15 seconds before it starts taking pictures. You may press the “DO NOT DISTURB” button again to reset the “DO NOT DISTURB” mode to last for another 4 minutes. You may also reactivate the Vicon Revue from “DO NOT DISTURB” mode at any time by pressing the manual shutter button.

In addition, should you want any images to be deleted that were accidently taken (e.g. during a time when you would have preferred the Vicon Revue to be off but forgot to turn it off ), you will be able to note the time in a small notepad, which we will provide to you. As soon as you return to the measurement office, you will have the opportunity to privately review and delete any images prior to them being seen by research staff.

Furthermore, several aspects of the procedure are designed to ensure the rights and privacy of other people who may appear in the images captured by Vicon Revue. These include:

1) You must deactivate the Vicon Revue when you are at, or in, any of the following list of places or situations.

a. Place/Situations:i. Any restroomii. Any changing room, locker room, etc.iii. Doctor’s officeiv. ATM or bankv. Wherever/Whenever anyone requests deactivating

129



2) You may not use the Vicon Revue in private locations, such as a home, without the permission of other people in that location.

3) A reference card will be provided for you to carry around while wearing the device. This includes:

a. a prepared statement to read to anyone with questions or concerns about the Vicon Revue; “I am participating in an experiment on daily activities and the environment. This is a digital camera that automatically captures low-resolution still images throughout the day, which will later be used to describe my behavior and environment. It does not record audio or full-motion video. Any images captured will not be made public in any fashion and will only be seen by the researchers. If you would prefer, I can turn off or temporarily deactivate the camera, and/or make a note and have the images just taken deleted without anyone seeing them. I can also provide contact information for the researchers.”

b. Contact information for the investigators (email, address and phone number)

4) A small notepad in which to note periods of time for images that you want deleted.

5) In order to protect your privacy and the privacy of others who may appear in the images, the images will not be released to you under any circumstances.”

5. B2 was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving 300 adult participants to test a text message intervention for weight loss. Both English and Spanish-speaking men and women between the ages of 21-60 are eligible to participate. The study was modified to include a GPS device to assess physical activity in a subsample of participants who would wear the device for seven days at two time points. Several months later, the study was modified to include GIS analysis. The description of study risks, risk management strategies and practices to enhance privacy and confidentiality were nearly identical to those described in study “A3” (see above).

Review Outcome. The IRB expressed concern about the “potential legal implications associated with the use of GPS” and asked the investigator to revise the informed consent document to address limits to confidentiality. The consent form was revised to include the following detail, which was accepted by the IRB:

“If you are part of the sub sample study, there is a slight chance that you may find the GPS device uncomfortable to wear. You may decline to participate or stop wearing the device at any time. You may also experience discomfort or a sense of loss of privacy as a result of revealing your exact location for one week to the researchers. However, the GPS unit does not tell us what you are doing, who you are with, and generally does not track your location when you are inside a building. We will only know the location of your activities after you return the device. If you do not want us to track certain locations you visit, you can turn the GPS device off during this time. All responses and data collected from the GPS device will be kept confidential within the research team and will not be shared unless required to by law, and no material that could personally identify you will be used in any reports or publications from this study.”


6. C1 was a randomized control trial (RCT) involving 234 non-diabetic, obese adults designed to assess three dietary approaches in behavioral weight loss intervention. To objectively measure physical activity, participants agreed to wear a GPS and an accelerometer for seven days and a heart rate monitor for three days. Several years after the initial approval, the PI requested a modification to add GIS analysis. The description of the study risks and risk management strategies were similar to descriptions noted in other cases.

Review Outcome. Specific to the modification to add GIS analysis, the IRB requested that the investigator revise the informed consent document to address the additional risk that is described as “obtaining more knowledge about the environments the participant moves through.” The investigator responded in a manner consistent with those found in Cases A3 and B2; however, the IRB insisted that the consent form be revised. The investigator responded with additional information to clarify that the “GIS measures will improve these analyses, but do not alter the data that have been collected from the start of the study or its use in answering the proposed questions.” The investigator goes on to write that “The current consent form adequately addresses the issue of potential risk of loss of confidentiality … addition of secondary analyses does not increase the current risk.” Several additional communications occurred between the IRB and investigator concerning revisions to the informed consent document specific to GIS risk disclosure including a request for a waiver of written consent citing “substantial burden and difficulty” of contacting 185 participants who have since completed participation. The investigator also cited other studies that have received approval to conduct this secondary analysis without re-consenting subjects. The most recent communication revealed the investigator withdrew the request to include GIS analysis.

7. D1 was a prospective cohort study involving an older adult population. The study was modified to include a pilot to test the use of devices to objectively assess movement in this population. Participants were asked to wear the Vicon Review camera, a GPS device, and an accelerometer. Risks were described as minimal and descriptions of risks and risk management are consistent with other cases described previously.

Review Outcome. The pilot study is approved with no concerns expressed by the IRB.

8. E1 was a RCT involving 340 post-menopausal women. The study was modified to include a GPS, GIS and an accelerometer to examine the relationship between obesogenic environments and physical activity, sedentary behavior and body mass. The potential risks and risk management strategies were similar to those reported in other cases noted. The consent form was amended to reflect the changes.

Review Outcome. The IRB requested minor procedural clarifications and the study was approved as proposed upon receipt of the investigator’s response.

Synthesis of Results

The use of MIST technologies will make observation of day-to-day behavior and activity knowable through objective means rather than by self-report methods. There are a number of new ethical and regulatory challenges introduced by the use of wearable sensing devices in behavioral health research as noted in the case study summaries. Likewise, there are challenges in how researchers,

131



IRBs and participants communicate to ensure the research is designed and conducted in a socially responsible manner. This study is novel in the elucidation of protections that researchers and IRB have agreed upon and use to guard research participants and unwitting bystanders from the over-reach of the new mobile sensing research methodologies.

In this study, we provide results of a multi-case analysis to better understand the perceived risks and strategies used to mitigate risks that were found acceptable at one institution. With this snapshot, we are able to confirm that the use of sensing technologies to objectively measure physical activity are introducing unique issues for consideration. From our review of these eight studies, we have learned that the primary concerns with visual imaging methods focused on the rights of bystanders who may be imaged and well as concerns for participant privacy. Specific to location logging, we learned that the use of GPS did not prompt concern; however, when combined with GIS the IRB response was variable with respect to the IRB review outcomes.

Three main themes were identified that may contribute to enhanced protections of human subjects including: 1) methods to enhance informed consent; 2) precautions to respect the rights of bystanders; and, 3) considerations for data management. Procedures found to be acceptable to the PI and IRB of record are described below. We are continuing to collect evidence to determine whether strategies designed to enhance informed consent and mitigate participant and bystander risk are effective. It is important to recognize that findings associated with this case study analysis are limited to research protocols that included visual imaging and GPS measurement devices being used to measure activity. These studies occurred within one organization and received review by one of five of the organization’s IRBs.

Informed Consent, Control and Transparency

The principle of ‘respect for persons’ is demonstrated through the process of obtaining the informed consent from an individual considering participation in research (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Belmont Report, 1979). The IRB-approved studies consistently indicated that participants may experience a loss of privacy while using location logging and imaging devices. To mitigate the threats to privacy associated with both devices, participants were informed that they could remove the device when desired, a practice intended to give the research subject more control over their participation. An example from an approved consent form is noted in B1 above.

With the imaging device, two methods were approved for safeguarding a participant privacy. First, the privacy setting on the camera was described during the informed consent process with instructions for the participant to press the privacy button when privacy was needed (e.g., banking, bathroom, gym, etc.). Second, the research staff could delete images captured by the device that the participant wanted omitted (e.g., when the participant forgot to use the privacy button). Approved studies also included a procedure whereby participants were given a small notepad to record the time and date of a private image so that research staff could easily locate the images to delete. Likewise, upon completing the study, participants had the option to privately view the images exported to the study computer and were able to delete images without restriction. While this strategy may compromise the data record, the value of giving participants control was prioritized.

132

To decrease the likelihood that participants would encounter a negative response from a bystander who may be imaged, potential subjects were asked to confer with family and cohabitants prior to enrolling in the study. Likewise, the participant was instructed on how to respond to an individual who preferred not to be recorded. Within the consent form, participants were told of limitations to confidentiality, including the requirement for researchers to report illegal and reportable incidents recorded by the camera.

Rights of Bystanders

The imaging methods used to measure activity in context captures what the participant sees and will include images of persons who are in the vicinity of the participant. These ‘bystanders’ will be included in the research record by virtue of their proximity to the participant. Since the research is not about the person in the image, that individual is not considered a human subject (45 CFR 46.101). However, two IRB determination letters revealed concerns about bystander rights. One IRB determination letter stipulated that the camera be removed from the study design to protect the rights of the bystander (non-participant) and considered the risk to the bystander as being greater than potential study benefits. Another asked that images irrelevant to the study goals be obscured using a blurring technique. However, to blur images would involve outsourcing of services thereby introducing increased risks of a data security incident. Likewise, blurring techniques may compromise data quality making environmental context difficult to interpret.

Approved research plans included procedures for the participant to obtain permission from a bystander when there was an expectation of privacy (e.g., at someone’s home) and included a reference card containing a brief explanation of the study should a bystander inquire about the device (see study B4). If upon learning about the study, a bystander does not want her/his image included in the research record, the research participant is instructed to remove the device or activate the privacy button on the camera and record the time and date of the interaction so that any images captured during that timeframe may be deleted.

Data Storage, Access and Sharing

Data confidentiality was a notable concern for both researchers and IRBs specific to information collected via imaging and tracking methods. Steps taken by the investigators to protect privacy involved: 1) configuring the camera to encrypt images so that if downloaded, images cannot be viewed; 2) limiting access to images recorded to members of the research team who were authorized to unlock the device; 3) storing data on a password protected secure server consistent with approved University security standards; 4) limiting GIS analysis to environmental measures of physical activity and eating habits; 5) not matching GPS coordinates with protected health information (PHI); and, 6) not linking GPS coordinates to participant information such as gender or age. Approved protocols also described required data management and confidentiality training for those on the research team who have access to participant information.

Data sharing protocols were briefly discussed within the cases analyzed. Questions remain regarding how and under what circumstances should location and imaging data be shared with colleagues who are not members of the immediate research team. Because these studies are occurring in multi-disciplinary environments, it is important for both researchers and IRBs to


133


recognize that the standards for sharing data within a research group can vary considerably as team members may have diverse conventions for data sharing.

Discussion

Our document analysis revealed ethical and regulatory concerns associated with two MIST technologies used in research. It is clear that both researchers and IRBs are exploring somewhat uncharted territory with respect to risk assessment and related strategies to mitigate risks to participants. How and whether the IRB should consider the rights of a bystander emerged as a new challenge when determining risk of harm and balancing potential harm with benefits. This is particularly noteworthy as the charge of the IRB pertains specifically to human subjects as defined in 45 CFR 46 and, while respect for others is important, it is unclear whether the IRB has a role in evaluating risk to bystanders. If IRBs will be charged with protecting bystanders, clear guidelines are needed to assist IRBs to navigate this expanded scope of responsibility.

The visual imaging method used to obtain participant point of view perspectives is increasing in popularity. In 2013, the 4th International SenseCam Conference was held in California drawing researchers from across the globe interested in utilizing visual imaging technology for research purposes. Recognizing the ethical challenges associated with visual imaging in research, an ethical framework was proposed to guide this work (see Kelly et al., 2013). For the most part, research included in this multi-case study adhered to these ethical guidelines, demonstrated via the informed consent process, risk management strategies and recognition of the rights of bystanders. Whether these procedures are effective is not yet known.

The lack of IRB concern for studies involving GPS location logging methods was surprising. The GPS traces captured during study participation includes the exact longitude and latitude at specific points in time, which can present rather significant privacy and security concerns for researchers and IRBs to consider when evaluating research. GIS software is used to contextualize the GPS data (e.g., is activity or lack there of occurring at a park? or an office?). Interestingly, while use of GPS independently did not receive much attention, when coupled with GIS concerns were raised during IRB review. While understanding the context may appear rather innocuous, these data could be considered sensitive if data security is breached. Since GPS tracking is a feature of technologies used in daily life (e.g., smart phone, automobiles), it may appear undeserving of added scrutiny or, perhaps there is a lack of IRB sensitivity to the potential risks introduced if location data are not adequately protected. Research is needed to better understand GPS use in research and what may increase risk (e.g., characteristics of participants) and mitigate risks (appropriate data security). Likewise, it is important that IRB members become familiar with best practices for securing data generated from GPS.

During our review of the literature, we found no published guidelines to inform the ethical design of research studies that utilize GPS/GIS tracking methods. Michael et. al (2006) proposed an emerging ethical framework when GPS is used for other purposes (e.g., tracking patients, criminals, employees); however, the ethical issues of surveillance and human rights do not transfer directly to research studies in which participation is voluntary. Procedures to enhance the ethical conduct of GPS/GIS in the studies reviewed may represent an emerging ethics for researchers



and IRBs to evaluate and build upon. At a minimum, participants should receive information about how GPS/GIS is used, what the data reveal (e.g., include examples of GPS traces when obtaining informed consent) and limitations to the de-identification of these data. The primary risk associated with GPS is the potential for unauthorized access to data. To reduce the risk of a data breach, IRBs and researchers may benefit from working with data security experts to identify best practices for encrypting, storing and sharing of location data.

In conclusion, MIST technologies may be a game changer in the battle against a number of chronic health concerns. Yet, in a society with mounting concerns of surveillance and privacy, researchers and IRB members are obligated to explore new and complex ethical issues to ensure this research advances in an ethical and socially responsible manner. This paper sheds light on issues being raised by IRB members and researchers around risk assessment, informed consent, bystander rights and data management when using visual imaging and location logging technologies. While we have exposed concerns and presented management strategies, many questions remain including, for example, the role of an IRB in considering the non-participants or ‘bystander’ rights or whether the procedures to enhance human subject protections are effective. The amount of personal identifiable information and health information collected via mobile technologies is beyond what researchers and IRB members have navigated in the past and, in many cases extends into a grey zone outside of existing regulatory structures (e.g., HIPAA). Clearly, this is an area in which research stakeholders have a vested interest and one that is ripe for empirical research to inform best practices and guidelines.

135



Acknowledgement

Dr. Nebeker is a member of the UC San Diego faculty in Family Medicine and Public Health and serves on an IRB. Ms. Linares-Orozco is an IRB analyst and a graduate student in a Health Policy and Law program. Ms. Crist is a graduate student and program manager of research studies that utilize MIST devices. We share a common interest in developing best practices to advance the ethical conduct of research using MIST technologies. We thank Dr. Anthony Magit and Dr. Michael Caligiuri with the UC San Diego Human Research Protection Program and Dr. Jacqueline Kerr and Dr. Marta Jankowska with the Department of Family Medicine and Public Health for their guidance and for facilitating access to documents reviewed for this case study. This project was conducted without financial support from intra- or extramural sources.

This research was limited to document analysis of IRB/Investigator communications and did not involve human subjects. Correspondence should be addressed to Camille Nebeker, EdD, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, UC San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093

Camille Nebeker, EdD, MSAssistant Professor, Behavioral MedicineDepartment of Family Medicine and Public HealthSchool of Medicine, UC San Diego9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093Email: [email protected]: 858-534-7786Fax: (858) 534-4642

Rubi Linares-Orozco, BA, MAScHealth Policy and Law, Graduate StudentUC San Diego

Katie Crist, MPHPublic Health, Graduate StudentDepartment of Family Medicine and Public HealthUC San Diego


References

Cox, S., Drew, S., Guillemin, M., Howell, C., Warr, D., and Waycott, J. (2014). Guidelines for ethical visual research methods. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Cole-Lewis, H. and Kershaw, T. (2010). Text messaging as a tool for behavior change in disease prevention and management. Epidemiologic Reviews, 32(1), 56–69.

Doherty, AR, Kelly, P, Kerr, J. Marshall, S., Oliver, M., Badland, H. and Foster, C. (2012). Use of wearable cameras to assess population physical activity behaviours: an observational study. The Lancet, 380, S35-S35.

Doherty, A. R., Kelly, P., Kerr, J., Marshall, S., Oliver, M., Badland, H., Hamilton, A., and Foster, C. (2013). Using wearable cameras to categorise type and context of accelerometer-identified episodes of physical activity. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10, 22. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-10-22

Jankowska, M. M., Schipperijn, J., & Kerr, J. (2015). A framework for using GPS data in physical activity and sedentary behavior studies. Exercise and Sports Science Reviews, 43(1), 48–56.

Kelly, P., Marshall, S.J., Badland, H., Kerr, J., Oliver, M., Doherty, A.R., and Foster. C. (2013). An ethical framework for automated, wearable cameras in health behavior research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 44(3), 3: 314–319.

Kerr, J., Marshall, S.J., Godbole, S., Chen, J., Legge, A., Kelly, P., Oliver, M., Badland, H. and Forster, C. (2013). Using the SenseCam to improve classifications of sedentary behavior in free-living settings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(3), 290–296.

Krishna, S., Boren, S.A., and Balas, E.A. (2009) Healthcare via cell phones: a systematic review. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health, 2009, 15(3), 231–240.

Kumar, S., Nilsen, W.J., Abernethy, A., et al. (2013). Mobile health technology evaluation: the mHealth evidence workshop. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 45, 2: 228–236.

Meyer, C. (2001). A case in case study methodology. Field Methods 13(4), 329-352.

Michael, K., McNamee, A., and Michael, M. (2006). The emerging ethics of humancentric GPS tracking and monitoring. Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Business.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

137



Oliver, M., Doherty, A., Kelly, P., Badland, H., Mavoa, S., Shepherd J., Kerr, J., Marshall, S., Hamilton, A., and Foster, C. (2013). Utility of passive photography to objectively audit built environment features of active transport journeys: an observational study. International Journal of Health Geographics, 12(20) doi:10.1186/1476-072X-12-20

Stottelaar, B., Senden, J. and Montoya, L. (2014). On-line social sports networks as facilitators of crime. Crime Science 3:8. Accessed online: http://www.crimesciencejournal.com/content/3/1/8. Retrieved on March 1, 2015

Strege, D., (2013). Cyclists beware: Your GPS and phone apps might lead thieves to your bike. Spoked. Accessed online: http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/excursions/post/cyclists-beware-your-gps-might-lead-thieves-to-your-bike/. Retrieved on March 1, 2015

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Code of Federal Regulations – Title 45 Public Welfare CFR 46.

Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Fourth Edition. Sage: California.

The Master of Science in Research Administration

from Rush University is ...

Flexible, Manageable & Online

NOW ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS FOR

FALL 2015 www.rushu.rush.edu/msra

Society of Research Administrators InternationalServing the Profession Since 1967500 N. Washington Street, Suite 300Falls Church, VA 22046www.srainternational.org

Published by the Society of Research Administrators International

Volume XLVI, Number 1 Spring 2015 J Adownload.srainternational.org/journal/archive/JRA... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Volume XLVI, Number 1 Spring 2015 J Adownload.srainternational.org/journal/archive/JRA... ·...