Actually, I think it's nice to see the more thoughtful side of Spanky. Relevance is something higher ed (perhaps all ed) in general could stand to consider. Some faculty seem to think they exist to bring students to a higher level of thinking--perhaps so, but if what those students learn is not relevant, our highly educated students are eating (and working) at Micky D's. Research Admin is in a challenging position at the center of faculty, university administration, agency, and government regulations. Won't faculty be more willing to work with us, rather than against, if we provide something they need/value? Just how far research administration can go in relevance will probably vary with institutional attitude, but Spanky opens the scene for some more "qualitative" thinking about how research administrators function. Now we need to define "relevance" or are there "levels of relevance." And how are research administrators tangibly providing it? Is it the framing of what we do that makes a difference in how we are perceived? Are there low hanging fruit we could all pick to our advantage? Is there room in what we do to do this at all? There's already a fair amount of collaboration (sharing information, ideas) on the listserv. How can we become better research administrators? Or is it truly not worth the effort? What can I say? I help faculty WRITE proposals--one of those areas of relevance, perhaps, of which, if I recall correctly, Spanky is skeptical. Exact wording, I believe, was "we are not in the salvage business, we do not raise the dead." I remain an eternal optimist, and some of the dead are indeed beginning to walk! >>> xxxxxx@UALR.EDU 4/11/2006 1:52 PM >>> Are we having a cranky day? Spanky At 12:17 PM 4/11/2006, you wrote: >One way to prove relevance would be to just stop >doing the job - all of us, at once. Then I think >someone would notice. What's that they say... >"Don't know what you have 'til it's gone." > >Disclaimer: I don't recommend this. > > >---------- >From: Research Administration List >[mailto:xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG] On Behalf Of Charlie Hathaway >Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:55 AM >To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG >Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Relevance > >If you are not trying to sell something (the >object of branding), then being relevant may be >very distinct from making everyone aware of your >relevance. I think you are violating the >bodhisattva nature of the research administrator >by asking for thanks, respect, and >congratulations. And given that the relevance of >much of the work of our faculties is probably >not appreciated by us, and certainly not by the >general public, I hope you don't engender less respect in your quest for more. > >Critique the substance of a research proposal, >force the edits, and impact the review. Or write >a proposal, have the PI sign it, submit, and see >the check arrive. That will make your relevance >very apparent and very appreciated. But if one's >VERY relevant work is restricted to budgets and >compliance, I think we must spend our days, like >those in so many many many jobs, valued and >honored by a few but invisible to most. > >Charlie > > > >At 11:52 AM 4/11/2006, you wrote: >>No, it's teh link: >> >>Are Your Services Relevant or Just Expected? >> >>By Dr. Michael "Spanky" McCallister >>Director of Research & Sponsored Programs >>University of Arkansas at Little Rock >> >>I was talking to a colleague the other day >>about the whole branding fad. Branding is >>underfoot in higher education (almost as much >>as nanotechnology, but that's another story). >>Increased competition for students and donor >>dollars has us looking for ways to stand out, be recognizable. >> >>Anyway, he told me about some things he has >>read, including some work by Robert Sevier. I'm >>not going to act like I've read these books >>yet, -- I haven't - but the concept he discussed really has me thinking. >> >>The basic idea is this-in branding there are >>two components, relevance and awareness. When >>you are establishing a brand you are trying to >>get your clientele or constituents to >>understand that your product or service is >>relevant to their lives-it's something they >>need. A brand means nothing if it doesn't, well >>mean something to the potential buyer. As the >>kids say, it "represents," literally. >> >>Once your brand has relevance, then you can do >>things to keep people aware that your product >>is available. That's what a lot of advertising >>is, a reminder, a prompt to go and buy some >>more, to link this relevant things to >>situations in your life and so forth. But if >>your brand, your public image has no relevance, >>any publicity you get won't stick. It's >>reminding people of something they don't care >>about, something that is to them useless. >> >>This concept is really powerful for teaching >>proposal development, but that's not the aspect >>I want to discuss. I think research >>administration as a field, and as offices in >>institutions, has never established its >>relevance. We generally feel (admit it) >>undervalued because we have not figured out how >>to make ourselves sufficiently relevant. Of >>course people learn that we are relevant when >>we help them in a sticky situation, when they >>see that we have skills and are a valuable >>resource. But, in terms of our community at >>large, on any scale, we are seen as clerks, >>obstacles, just red tape. Clerks aren't about >>real work, they just do things that are mundane >>and often frustrating-a department of motor vehicles comes to mind. >> >>And since we exist only as helpers and >>teachers, this is pretty weird, isn't it? This >>is a much more fundamental problem than "Can >>you explain to your Mamma what you do?" We've >>been struggling with this for about 50 years >>now and we talk to each other about >>professionalism when we need to need to talk >>about relevance-not self-righteous self >>defense, relevance. We talk about being a >>profession, but mostly that's self-talk-we, our >>work, need to become as externally relevant as we are internally proud >> >>So we try to inform folks, to make them aware >>of the research office. We do those old lame >>"services of our offices" presentations. Even >>we yawn at those. So what if we do things if >>the researchers don't value them? Preaward is >>being eaten alive (OK, almost alive) by the web >>and society's evolving self-service lifestyle. >>Postaward is rarely seen by anyone as helpful- >>if it walks like a cop, talks like a cop, you know. >> >>So to whom are we relevant? Some of the agency >>people think we are relevant. Most think we are >>provincials, but they understand our role, even >>if most of our conversation with them is about >>problem-solving on our end, which already puts >>us in a bad light. It's important that they >>value us, but they are not responsible for our >>walk-in business. That business, the >>researchers, generally values us once we've >>pulled their chestnuts from the fire. >> >>Within our institutions who sees us as >>relevant? Some of our bosses get it; they >>realize that useful work is being done in the >>research office. Other bosses see us as handy >>tools for taking care of details (which to me >>doesn't say "profession" at all). Many see us >>as necessary evils, BB stackers and bureaucrats, functionaries. >> >>We have a fundamental problem, one we can't >>overcome by advocacy. Improving awareness >>doesn't prove utility, it just shows activity. >>We count stuff, proposals out, awards in, >>numbers of people at our workshops, all kinds >>of stuff, all based on the work and initiative >>of others in one way or another. Do these >>things indicate our relevance or are we just >>making noise, hoping to get some attention? >> >>How are we going to do this? Often we are >>hardly visible units at our institutions-we >>don't get column inches in the paper, recruit >>students, score touchdowns. No one plans to >>become a research administrator-they stumble >>onto the work just as you and I did. (Are there >>other professions with only a back door?) On >>our campuses we only work with the researchers >>who have the talent and gumption to submit a >>proposal, an often small component of the >>institutional community. And that component, by >>its nature, is focused on their work and not >>staff senate or other posturing societies. >> >>We might take our on advice that we give in our >>daily practice. We tell our novice researchers >>to ally with someone who is already known, form >>a collaborative. I think that's what we need to >>do, too. We need to form some collaboratives. >> >>With whom? The most relevant, of course-- the >>biggest societies in research and discovery-in >>science, the humanities, engineering, medicine, >>anyone and everyone. And our affiliate >>organizations-AAASCU, NCURA, NASULGC, AUTM, and >>regulators and sponsors, our universe. In your >>institution you'd look to factuly development, >>the teaching and learning center, and the major >>research units. And the key to these >>affiliations is that we do relevant things with >>them, the things our collaborators and >>researchers want and need from us and our >>profession. We have to bring something to the >>table and we have lots of stuff to share. >> >>Our administrative role has always been as a >>crossroads for regulation, communication, >>management, faculty development, and many other >>fields. Could not extending the model of our >>work to our professional interactions serve to >>show our relevance to our customer and >>constituents? I have to sound fascist here, but >>wouldn't we be stronger in collaboration than we are standing alone? >> >>"So, smart guy," you say, "How do we do this?" >>Probably in small steps, like programming >>together, publishing together, sharing >>trainers, hosting meetings where real issues of >>commonality are discussed. There's no question >>that this will take a while, but are we moving >>fast? The most important thing is that we >>integrate with the research world at every >>opportunity. We need to escape our >>administrative silo, participate as relevant >>contributors to the process. If we want to be a >>profession, to be respected and relevant, we >>must believe we are and then show our world. >> >>There is a saying in proposal training: The >>meek may inherit the world, but they won't get >>funded. No matter how hard we work in the >>present mode, we aren't going to attract any >>more attention. It is time for us as the >>profession to bump it up a notch, get in the >>game, go metaphor crazy, and through our actions prove our relevance. >> >> >> >>At 10:03 AM 4/11/2006, you wrote: >>>Hi Spanky * >>> >>>The article sounds interesting, but the link didn't work for me. Is it me? >>> >>>Deb Birgen, MBA, CRA >>>Grant & Contract Administrator University of Washington >>>Tel: 206.685.7163 Office of Sponsored Programs >>>Fax: 206.685.1732 1100 NE 45th Street, Suite 300 >>>Email: >>><mailto:xxxxxx@u.washington.edu>xxxxxx@u.washington.edu >>>Seattle, WA 98105 >>> >>> >>>From: Research Administration List [ >>>mailto:xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG] On Behalf Of Mike McCallister >>>Sent: Tuesday, 11 Apr 2006 06:59 AM >>>To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG >>>Subject: [RESADM-L] Relevance >>> >>>I put a little article in the SRA eNewsletter >>>about relevance in research administration. >>>The basic idea is that many of us do what we >>>think is expected in our jobs, but we haven't >>>made a lot of progress in making what we do >>>relevant to our >>>customers/clients/constituencies. Here's a >>>link if you don't get the newsletter: >>>http://www.srainternational.org/sra03/template/enews/0406.cfm?id=943 >>>(the typos aren't all mine, I promise) >>> >>>If this interests you and you have an instance >>>in your experience where you did improve your >>>office's relevance with in your institution, >>>would you share that with me? I'd like to >>>follow that article with one that has some >>>examples for people in the profession to consider. >>> >>>Please answer directly to me-- I'd appreciate it a lot. >>> >>>Thanks >>> >>>Spanky >>> >>>Mike McCallister, Ph.D. >>>Office of Research and Sponsored Programs >>>University of Arkansas at Little Rock >>>2801 South University >>>Little Rock, AR 72204-1099 >>> >>>(o) 501-569-8474 The work >>>itself, the pleasure of finding a field >>>(c) 501-590-5609 for my >>>peculiar powers, is my highest reward. >>>(f) >>>501-371-7614 >>>Sherlock Holmes in Arthur Conan Doyle's The Sign of Four >>>http://www.ualr.edu/orsp/ >>> "At its best, >>> life is completely unpredictable." >>> Christopher Walken >>> >>>====================================================================== >>>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") ====================================================================== >> >>====================================================================== >>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") >====================================================================== > >====================================================================== >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") ====================================================================== ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
