Hi Pam, the same goes for our announcement I recently posted. The reasons we put it as a requirement are for the same reasons Bill listed, and I think they are very good ones. Thanks, Andrew Bill Schulze wrote: > Hi, Pam: > > I have a feeling you are referring to our announcement, although I > believe others do that as well... > > You make some good philosophical points, however our motive is more > practical than philosophical. Including a certification requirement in > the job description for Senior Research Administrator has allowed us > to obtain HR approval of a professional position at a competitive > salary level. > > We do not use the CRA as a screening instrument, or we would require > it up front. I feel many will agree that the CRA is an important > credential for various reasons, but by no means do I feel it should be > considered the quintessential measure of knowledge or competency > within the profession. > > We expect our Senior Research Administrators to be experienced and > highly skilled research administrators. Our evaluations of candidates > during the interview process are based on their knowledge of the field > and demonstrated skills, and since the 4 professionals currently in > our office have over 60 years of combined experience in Research > Administration, we have little trouble with these assessments. > > Bill > > PS: If anyone is interested in a good job with great people, please > apply... We're looking for really good research administrators, and if > you don't already have the CRA, don't worry about it - we'll give you > 3 years and also pay for it... > > **************************************** > William E. Schulze, EdD > Director of Sponsored Programs > University of Nevada, Las Vegas > Phone (702) 895-1357 > Fax (702) 895-0986 > xxxxxx@ccmail.nevada.edu > **************************************** > > Inactive hide details for Pamela Miller <xxxxxx@USFCA.EDU>Pamela > Miller <xxxxxx@USFCA.EDU> > > > > > > *Pamela Miller <xxxxxx@USFCA.EDU>* > Sent by: Research Administration List > <xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG> > > 12/05/2005 09:35 AM > Please respond to Research Administration > Discussion List > > > > To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG > cc: > Subject: [RESADM-L] CRA as a screening instrument > > > > > This is something that has been bothering me, and I have decided to > share my concerns via this forum: I recently noticed a research > administration position announcement that required that persons > applying for the job have CRA status or be willing to obtain this > designation within a few years of employment. In my opinion, requiring > research administrators obtain a Certified Research Administrator > (CRA) designation to obtain and maintain employment is very premature. > > The exam for the CRA tests an examinee’s knowledge of particular body > of knowledge and indicates that a high enough score on the test along > with a certain number of years on the job and a bachelor’s degree is > sufficient for the individual to be “certified” as a research or > grants administrator. The unasked questions in this transaction are: > Who decides what the fundamental body of knowledge is in research > administration? The exam may indeed have captured the incredible > diversity of this ever changing field, but how do we know? Is there an > objective credentialing body behind the CRA exam, such as the > Committee on Accreditation (CoA) which oversees the accreditation of > programs and exams in professional psychology for the American > Psychological Association (APA)? Is there anything more rigorous than > anecdotal evidence to support the validity of the exam? > > Assuming the CRA exam does capture all the fundamentals of research > administration, are the questions good questions, i.e., do the > questions really tap the individual’s true understanding of this body > of knowledge? No test is perfect, and there are numerous factors that > affect the reliability of a test, e.g., the length of the test, the > way the items are constructed, and even the directions for taking the > test. Reliability is an essential characteristic of a good test, > because if a test doesn't measure consistently (reliably), then one > can not know if the scores resulting from a particular administration > are due to the examinee’s achievement or random error. The CRA web > site does not report test validity or reliability information, and > these are important things to know before making someone’s job > dependent upon having or getting a CRA! > > Research administrators work hard, often without anyone noticing or > appreciating the work being done. It therefore is very tempting to try > and place research administration at the same table with other valued > professions. However, if one looks at what other professions have done > and are doing to achieve this respected status, it is clear that we in > research administration have a long way to go. The CRA may be an > important first step, but in my opinion it is unwise to think that we > have reached the end of the journey. > > Pamela F. Miller, Ph.D. > Director, Office of Sponsored Projects > The University of San Francisco > 2130 Fulton Street > San Francisco, CA 94117-1080 > TEL 415-422-5368 > FAX 415-422-6222 > EMAIL xxxxxx@usfca.edu_ <mailto:xxxxxx@usfca.edu> > > ====================================================================== > 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") > ====================================================================== > ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
