Operational and Fiscal Management of Core Facilities: A Survey of Chief Research Officers
Saved in:
| Title: | Operational and Fiscal Management of Core Facilities: A Survey of Chief Research Officers |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Carter, Jason R., Delahanty, Douglas L., Strasser, Jane E., Knoedler, Alicia J., Wilson, Gillian, Davis, Ralph K., Engel, Don |
| Source: | Journal of Research Administration. Fall 2019 50(3):14-31. |
| Availability: | Society of Research Administrators International. 500 North Washington Street Suite 300, Falls Church, VA 22046. Tel: 703-741-0140; Fax: 703-741-0142; e-mail: membership@srainternational.org; Web site: https://www.srainternational.org/resources/journal |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 18 |
| Publication Date: | 2019 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Research Universities, Shared Resources and Services, Educational Facilities, Facilities Management, Financial Support, Research Administration, Research Directors, Administrator Attitudes, Administrative Organization, Budgets, Administrator Effectiveness, Contracts |
| ISSN: | 1539-1590 |
| Abstract: | Sharing research equipment and personnel across investigators and laboratories has a long-standing history within research universities. However, the coordinated management of centralized, shared resources (i.e., core facilities) that provide access to instruments, technologies, services, expert consultation, and/or other scientific and clinical capabilities by Chief Research Officers (CROs) represents a more recent shift within the academy. While a number of recent surveys and studies have focused on the experiences of core facility directors and users, there has not yet been a targeted survey of CROs. Partnering with the Association for Public and Land Grant Universities Council on Research, fifty-eight CROs (or their designee) from research universities completed an electronic survey on core facilities (response rate = 35%). Core facilities formally reported to a range of entities within the university (and many to multiple entities), including the CRO office (83%), colleges/schools (67%), institutes/centers (42%), and departments (42%). Forty percent of respondents indicated that their university does not have a formal process to become and/or retain status as a recognized core facility. CROs also perceived that different types of core facilities directors differed in their general effectiveness (F(3,179)=6.88, p<0.001); professional staff and administrators were rated as significantly more effective at directing/supervising core facilities than were tenure/tenure-track faculty (Tukey's post-hoc; p<0.005). Core facilities were funded through a variety of mechanisms, with the most common being use fees (96%), central and/or decentralized funding of directors or staff (77%), annual general fund allocation (62%), a designated portion of Facilities & Administration (F&A) reimbursements (46%), and internal grant programs (31%). Funds for purchasing new equipment within core facilities came from a number of sources, with the most common being external grants (87%), central institutional funds (83%), college/school/department funds (73%), use fees (50%), F&A resources (50%), and donations (27%). There are significant challenges to managing and funding core facilities; the present study provides new insights into the various strategies and tactics being taken by CROs to address these real and perceived challenges. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2019 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1237833 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Sharing research equipment and personnel across investigators and laboratories has a long-standing history within research universities. However, the coordinated management of centralized, shared resources (i.e., core facilities) that provide access to instruments, technologies, services, expert consultation, and/or other scientific and clinical capabilities by Chief Research Officers (CROs) represents a more recent shift within the academy. While a number of recent surveys and studies have focused on the experiences of core facility directors and users, there has not yet been a targeted survey of CROs. Partnering with the Association for Public and Land Grant Universities Council on Research, fifty-eight CROs (or their designee) from research universities completed an electronic survey on core facilities (response rate = 35%). Core facilities formally reported to a range of entities within the university (and many to multiple entities), including the CRO office (83%), colleges/schools (67%), institutes/centers (42%), and departments (42%). Forty percent of respondents indicated that their university does not have a formal process to become and/or retain status as a recognized core facility. CROs also perceived that different types of core facilities directors differed in their general effectiveness (F(3,179)=6.88, p<0.001); professional staff and administrators were rated as significantly more effective at directing/supervising core facilities than were tenure/tenure-track faculty (Tukey's post-hoc; p<0.005). Core facilities were funded through a variety of mechanisms, with the most common being use fees (96%), central and/or decentralized funding of directors or staff (77%), annual general fund allocation (62%), a designated portion of Facilities & Administration (F&A) reimbursements (46%), and internal grant programs (31%). Funds for purchasing new equipment within core facilities came from a number of sources, with the most common being external grants (87%), central institutional funds (83%), college/school/department funds (73%), use fees (50%), F&A resources (50%), and donations (27%). There are significant challenges to managing and funding core facilities; the present study provides new insights into the various strategies and tactics being taken by CROs to address these real and perceived challenges. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1539-1590 |
