Tim, et al (interested in the RCR mandate):

I think the principal problem we will encounter is a fast moving target.  If
the public commentary forces ORI and others to change the outline of the RCR
package, those of us who have begun the task of organization of our
instruction/training packages will have to go back and fill in where newer
requirements are levied.  That is obvious.  I think the outline is pretty
well-considered, if not entirely of the same importance across the ten areas.

Rather than taking this list as a condemnation of graduation preparation in
this country, I think it
represents instead a recognition that things have become quite a bit more
complicated in the past couple of decades and that the interests and
activities of persons of widely varying traditions and schooling have
converged on increasingly sensitive areas.

I am hoping that ORI will chat with us on the content of our training
packages.  Institutions have
widely varying temperaments, and so it seems reasonable that institutions be
permitted to address
their constituencies in local vocabularies.  What needs emphasis at a campus
with a medical center may not need mention at all in a small liberal arts
college.  The body of knowledge is pretty well-known, so a training program
with ample references should pass muster.  Put another way ... there seems
little
point to repeating everything written on the couple dozen seminal websites.
Also, I want control over the material presented; I do not want a commercial
or federal product to sell on campus.  I know this means 5,000 inventions of
the wheel.  In this case I think this is good for us.

Finally, I think that faculty buy-in is crucial.  At the same time, and
without contradiction, I think that a
training program really should address the major points and test for
comprehension.  This is ticklish
business among folk some (few) of whom are "writing the book" in these areas.
The plain fact is that a large number of faculty and staff do not yet have
that sort of acquaintance with these subjects that suggests competency.

Jim

xxxxxx@EXCHANGE.UAMS.EDU wrote:

> Dear List,
>
> We have already started thinking about a plan for instruction in RCR in
> response to the DHHS policy that will come out this fall, and I'm sure it
> will go through iterations galore. We were wondering what kind of problems
> you think we'll run up against when we try to implement this plan.
>
> Your general thoughts about DHHS's policy are appreciated. If you haven't
> seen the draft yet, go here: http://ori.dhhs.gov/whatsnew.htm
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
> Tim Atkinson
> Director, Research Support Center
> Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute
> Little Rock, AR 72202
> V: 501-320-3581
> F: 501-320-2705
>
> ======================================================================
>  Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
>  subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
>  via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
> ======================================================================

--
James R. Brett, Ph.D., Director
Office of University Research
California State University, Long Beach
562-985-4833   fax 985-8665
http://www.ur.csulb.edu/main.htm

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================