Research management review最新文献

{"title":"Collaboration in Action: Measuring and Improving Contracting Performance in the University of California Contracting Network.","authors":"Tam Tran,&nbsp;LeeAnna Bowman-Carpio,&nbsp;Nate Buscher,&nbsp;Jennifer J Ford,&nbsp;Erick Jenkins,&nbsp;Hillary Noll Kalay,&nbsp;Terry Nakazono,&nbsp;Helene Orescan,&nbsp;Rachael Sak,&nbsp;Irene Shin,&nbsp;Pamela Davidson","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2013, the University of California, Biomedical Research, Acceleration, Integration, and Development (UC BRAID) convened a regional network of contracting directors from the five University of California (UC) health campuses to: (i) increase collaboration, (ii) operationalize and measure common metrics as a basis for performance improvement efforts, and (iii) identify and implement best practices to maintain a competitive edge in the field of biomedical research. This article summarizes an 18-month examination of performance metrics across the five campuses, including methods for data collection and harmonization agreed upon by the UC contracting offices. Some of the most striking, and previously unmeasured, results demonstrate that master agreements are a highly effective and successful strategy for significantly shortening the average time to completion of contract terms. Interestingly, clinical research organizations (CROs) significantly increase the time required to negotiate a contract. Results also point to the intra- and inter-organizational dependencies affecting time to contract execution. Systematic and transparent data collection among UC stakeholders is necessary to continue improvements to the system. However, data collection is only one component of the larger need to develop shared technology both within and between institutions. This study demonstrates that collaboration and sharing of contract terms is an effective way to reduce study activation time, but the greatest improvements will be driven by the sharing of data and technology tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":88983,"journal":{"name":"Research management review","volume":"22 1","pages":"28-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6029617/pdf/nihms955245.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36288009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The FDP Faculty Burden Survey.","authors":"Sara Rockwell","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To better understand the administrative burdens placed on faculty who perform research, the Faculty Standing Committee of the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) invited 23,325 full-time faculty members who were Principal Investigators (PI) or Co-Principal Investigators (Co-PI) on active federally funded research grants to participate in a web-based survey that contained questions on the nature, size, and impact of the administrative tasks associated with their research projects. The responses of the 6,081 faculty respondents show that the administrative burden on faculty is very significant: 42% of the time spent by an average PI on a federally funded research project was reported to be expended on administrative tasks related to that project rather than on research. This administrative burden does not stem from one or a few exceptionally onerous tasks, but instead reflects the cumulative effect of the many administrative burdens imposed by different funding agencies, different offices within agencies, auditing and accrediting agencies, and academic institutions. The lack of institutional assistance contributes to the administrative workload of the faculty. Many burdens are remarkably constant across funding agencies, universities, disciplines, and faculty subgroups. The report documents the negative effect reported for these administrative burdens on the productivity of researchers, the careers of young faculty members, and the training of students.</p>","PeriodicalId":88983,"journal":{"name":"Research management review","volume":"16 2","pages":"29-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2887040/pdf/nihms-156127.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"29067837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Contradictions in Irish Academic Research","authors":"S. Jerrams, John Donovan","doi":"10.21427/D7R896","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21427/D7R896","url":null,"abstract":"The conditions that govern academic research vary greatly from country to country and research in the Republic of Ireland was and remains markedly different from that of its larger European neighbours and the United States. Despite the quality of its education system and the excellent reputation of its universities, until recently Ireland had relatively low levels of academic research. Pinnacles of excellence could be found in certain disciplines, but state funding was low and issues relating to industrial collaborations, international partnerships, commercialisation and the exploitation of Intellectual Property (IP) rarely arose. Even today the Irish Government’s spending on academic research, though only slightly less than the European average based on GNP, is dwarfed by the Research and Development (R & D) budgets of individual multinational companies. Nonetheless, rapid economic growth has led to a heightened awareness of the need for strategically planned research. The ‘Lisbon Objective’ proposes to make Europe “the most dynamic knowledge-driven economy in the world by 2010”. Consequently research is heavily influenced by this policy and so a range of unfamiliar problems are posed for managers of Irish academic research. Key to successful operational planning and growth is the need to reconcile a number of contradictions at the heart of R & D in Third Level Institutes 1 . _____________________________________________________________________ RECENT TRENDS IN IRISH ACADEMIC RESEARCH There are seven universities and fourteen Institutes of Technology (IOT’s) in the Republic of Ireland, serving a population of approximately four million. These statistics give only a superficial impression of a complex structure that has evolved over centuries. Four of the universities, University College Dublin, University College Cork, Galway and Maynooth, are in a federation under the heading ‘National University of Ireland’ (NUI), whilst the University of Dublin (Trinity College), Dublin City University and the University of Limerick are autonomous bodies. Thirteen of the Institutes of Technology were formed from Regional Technical Colleges (RTC’s) in the recent past, whilst the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) was formally established in 1992 by amalgamating six technology colleges in the city. DIT is the largest third level institution in the state with some twenty-one thousand students, awards its own qualifications up to PhD level and has a student intake that ranges from craft studies to postdoctoral research. A report in 1998 i raised the prospect of DIT becoming a university, but this aspiration has been dampened by recommendations in a recent OECD publication ii . 1 ‘Third Level Institute’ is a term used in Ireland to describe any higher education institute The Department of Education and Science (DES) is responsible for funding research initiatives for the IOT’s, working through the Council of Directors of Institutes of Technology. The Council is ","PeriodicalId":88983,"journal":{"name":"Research management review","volume":"14 1","pages":"29-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67747877","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}