Are you sure you want to log out?
You are a:
Some, but not all, universities invest resources in supporting team science by creating and maintaining units engaged in research development. Individuals in these units are referred to as Research Development Officers, and they generally do the following:
Support a team of researchers with the objective of obtaining a research center grant that is generally $7.5 to $25 million in direct costs over five years. The research will focus on developing new approaches to solving significant and complex biomedical problems that require cross-disciplinary engagement, particularly those that have been resistant to more traditional siloed approaches. These new approaches must hold the promise of leading to new opportunities to improve human health. This team science project would be a national consortium initiative designed to explore the reproductive future of cancer survivors.
Identify an appropriate funding opportunity, coordinate potential collaborators, facilitate acquisition of funding, support team interaction, and help the team manage award resources.
See how long this step might take in a real-world setting.
Room 1: Initiating the Project
This typically takes two weeks to six months. Certain factors influence how much time this takes, such as the time between when you find out about the opportunity and when it's due, planning and preparedness capabilities of the PI, the point in research program, and previous collaboration history of participants
Room 2: Developing the Proposa
This typically takes six months to two years
Room 3: Developing a Relationship with the Funder
This will happen throughout the project
Room 4: Promoting Collaboration
This will happen throughout the project
Daniel Stokols, PhD, talks about how the types of team science are differentiated. Additional expert information is available in The Science of Team Science (Module 1, Research Resource) and the Module 1 Library.
“There’s a continuum of disciplinarity to transdisciplinarity discussed by Patricia Rosenfield in her 1992 article. And you can have unidisciplinary collaboration, or team, of people working within a particular field that are all at the same lab and they’re sharing ideas about the work that they’re they’re studying and the research that they’re pursuing, and that may be all biologists in a particular lab. A multidisciplinary approach according to Rosenfield is where you bring people from different fields into a team, but they don’t work all that closely together, they each contribute something to an analysis. You know, a good example might be a task force report where you have a psychologist and a sociologist and a public health person and they each write a section and that gives you a kind of multidisciplinary approach to whatever topic you’re looking at, whether it’s crime or behavioral deviance or what-have-you. Interdisciplinarity builds on multidisciplinarity in that you have people from different fields working together, but they tend to interact more closely over a longer period of time, and they still remain anchored in their respective fields in that, where they were trained but they’re open to discussing, sharing, and kind of trading ideas so it’s not so much an assembly line but it’s more of an interactive group working over time to create a shared product.
Now, transdisciplinarity is a bit different according to Rosenfield from interdisciplinarity in that the people working in an interdisciplinary team progress to a point where they kind of transcend their individual backgrounds and perspectives and they work together to create a shared conceptual product that goes beyond and bridges those different fields, so rather than each one representing their home discipline they decide to embrace kind of a shared product that they’ve developed which transcends those fields. It’s often very hard to make the call when a research project has moved from interdisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity because you have to have criteria for identifying whether a shared conceptual model has evolved, whether in fact it does bridge and transcend individual fields, so that’s basically the continuum that she’s presented.”
—Daniel Stokols, PhD, University of California-Irvine: Professor, Planning, Policy and Design; Professor, Psychology and Social Behavior
Now that a research interest has been presented and outlined, you will need to look for appropriate funding opportunities. Read each node to learn more about the RDO's role at this stage.
RDOs have a particular skill set and an expertise for reading the fine print on funding opportunity announcements, which complements the PI's scientific expertise. It allows the PI to focus on the science as much as possible. RDOs look for the exclusionary statements—details that outline limitations or specific parameters—such as page counts and budget considerations. It's the RDO's responsibility to get the PI to read the whole funding opportunity announcement, so both the RDO and PI have the same understanding of what's necessary (though the RDO often pays closer attention to the details than the PI).
RDOs verify that the science of the project aligns with the mission of the funding agency. Just because the mechanism supports team science doesn't mean that will be enough to secure funding. The RDO needs to check the agency's mission to see if it supports the kind of research to be pursued.
The RDO's job is to learn about the PI's interests to be able to effectively advocate for them with the funding agency and others in the university research enterprise who need to be brought on board.
The RDO will not only look at the science and the mission of the agency, but will push for the mechanism that allows for enough support to conduct the planned research and related activities. When planning a project that is larger than anything he/she has done previously, a PI may underestimate or fail to anticipate certain costs. The RDO is there is help make sure the investigators can execute all parts of the requisite research and related activities.
NIH research center grant mechanisms (e.g., P20, P50, and U54s) can be applied for in response to either a Program Announcement (PA) or a Request for Application (RFA). Here are some important distinctions worth considering.
Quotes from this page are from a video transcript of experts discussing key considerations to keep in mind when selecting investigators for your team
Additional expert information is available in The Science of Team Science (Module 1, Research Resource) and the Module 1 Library.
Consider scientific merit as well as how compatibly you can work with the researcher. Both factors are important!
"First of all, there is a very strong ethic [and this is] important in science, of merit. Choosing people on the basis of merit [is] what were committed to as scientists. And that makes sense; you don’t want to be choosing a collaborator on the basis of personal likes or dislikes, [as] that lends itself to [possibly] dismissing people who would otherwise be great scientific partners.
On the other hand, you need to pay some attention to the question of how compatibly can you work with someone else, and drawing the line between responding to people on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics that don’t have anything to do with [completing] the science on the one hand, or, on the other hand, choosing people with whom you know you can work effectively–that’s not an easy line to draw.
We need to get scientists on both sides to pay more attention to that. And maybe you’ll want to continue working with someone who has great technical expertise, but you might alert each other to the fact there’s some potential areas of tension between you if you realize that you’re not matched well on some dimensions of [the] collaboration and that will give you something to work with.
I think people do that in other [interpersonal] relationships too. They may realize that there are some points where there is going to be some clashing between them, but theres enough in the relationship [to sustain it] that they’re willing to figure out some way of handling the areas in which they will clash."
—Howard Gadlin, PhD, National Institutes of Health: Ombudsman and Director of the Center for Cooperative Resolution; Authoring Team Science Field Guide with Michelle Bennett
Imposing structure, rather than engaging potential team members can lead to failure when assembling a team.
"So I have seen groups, or leaders, try to form a team without engaging the team. This is really problematic. Now it seems funny, right, [but] I’ve [had] people ask for me to come and meet with them about a new team initiative and they’ll have listed the people who they want to participate and I’ll say, "What happened when you went and talked with your colleagues about this? [And they will respond] "Oh, I haven’t talked to them yet.
Unlike the fantasy football leagues, fantasy scientific teams [are not] effective; nobody’s willing to bet on those, so that’s not fun either. You dont want to do that. You really want to start by engaging people and that happens sort of on a one-on-one [basis]. Now, it doesn’t mean you have to go in and engage every member of the potential team, but you have to go and talk [with someone]. You don’t want to build up this whole team, identify who you want, and then go to them and try and make that structure and impose it upon your potential collaborators and your potential team members. It’s not going to work. A team has to be developed, and it has to get buy-in from the members all along as it progresses.
If it's coming top-down, then its more like a senior investigator with the trainees in his or her group and that’s not really what I see as a team of people working together towards a common goal from different perspectives looking to integrate things. So if they do the "fantasy science team, I don’t see that they’re ever going to [be successful] because they have already set in their minds exactly how they’d like to see things go and then they’re trying to fit other people into that mold. And other people are going [to respond], "Well why would I want to work on your project? I have to think about mine," and they don’t see it as a team endeavor."
—Holly Falk-Krzesinski, PhD, Northwestern University: Research Assistant Professor and Director, Research Team Support, Clinical and Translational Sciences (NUCATS) Institute, Feinberg School of Medicine; Chair, Annual International Science of Team Science Conference
Perceived interpersonal skills play a significant role in eventual success.
"It’s interesting, we have some data that looks at people’s perception of their interpersonal collaborative skills, in essence, or the way they perceive themselves [and] their capacity to engage– so [in other words,] their perceived interpersonal collaboration [aptitude]. And when we look at that in the context of some outcomes, we see that people who are successful or perceive themselves as successful in interpersonal collaboration[s] have [a] greater number of publications, greater number of presentations, [and] a greater number of co-authors [on publications]. I think that what that’s indicating is that there’s a certain [degree] of collaborative-readiness [skill inherent in a person] that might be important in someone engaging in a team endeavor."
—Kara Hall, PhD, National Institutes of Health: National Cancer Institute, Program Officer, Behavioral Research Program
Teams should analyze why they are collaborating before they begin collaborating.
"Another area [of importance] is what we call 'collaboration readiness.' That’s actually a factor thats turned out to be enormously important in a lot of the projects that differentiate[s] success from failure. [The question we want the collaborators to ask themselves is] 'Why are you collaborating?' And I’d say the riskiest way to launch a collaboration is [when] somebody tells you you have to.
And that’s very common with the funding agencies; increasingly, [the agencies] want projects that are collaborative [in nature] and those [projects] are the ones that are highest risk. But we want to understand better why people are collaborating and what their collaboration skills are like because not everybody’s a good collaborator. So this whole area [is what we refer to as] 'collaboration readiness.' "
—Gary Olson, PhD, University of California-Irvine: Bren Professor of Information and Computer Sciences; University of Michigan: Professor Emeritus and Founder of the Collaboratory for Research on Electronic Work (CREW)
Team members should fulfill very specific and clearly articulated roles.
"Teams that need to come together have to do so in order to meet the technical requirements of the task at hand. So clearly, you’ll need to have people on teams that have the skills, the expertise, and the methodologies that are necessary to accomplish the task. But there are other intangibles that play a very important part in why teams come together. Some [of these] have to do with the individuals on the team, and some have to do with the relationships amongst the individuals on the team. You need to have a team where somebody is a visionary and where somebody has the positive imagination to ask the challenging questions. You also need to have people on the team who play other roles. You need to have someone on the team who is going to be challenging those questions, who is going to be asking questions about it, and who is going to be skeptical about the visionary. On the other hand, you need to have people on the team who are ready to build momentum, that is, to take a visionary idea and to be able to see how one goes about trying to tactically implement those ideas. These are some of the roles that you need to make sure you have on the team."
—Noshir Contractor, PhD, Northwestern University: Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences, Communication Studies, and Management and Organizations
You worked with the PI to allocate reasonable amounts of the $22.5 million dollar maximum available funding to create this draft budget. Read each portion in the draft budget to learn about guidelines and best practices for this stage in proposal development. (Additional budget information is available in the Learn More: Drafting a Budget link on the activity browser.)
[Year 5]: Avoid front loading your budget; you'll need to evenly disburse funds to ensure the research doesn't run out of money near the critical end.
[$2,250,000]: The program announcement dictated that no more than 10% of your budget could go to fund your administrative core. This is a typical stipulation and good guiding principle for your budget even if it isn't stipulated.
[Training and Education Core]: Check if the program announcement requires specific cores.
[$300,000]: The program announcement dictated that the cores couldn't exceed $300,000 a year. Generally, research cores are funded lower than research projects.
[$20,000]: Check the program announcement for restrictions such as maximum and minimum allowable amounts. In this case, no more than $20,000 could be allotted for travel expenses.
[$303,000]: The program announcement dictated that the subprojects couldn't exceed $7.5 million in total for all five years. Generally speaking, research projects are funded at relatively the same level. Take a relatively transparent approach to budgeting to help avoid conflict.
[$22,500,000]: The program announcement dictated that you had a total budget of $22.5 million. It's important to not exceed the total allowable amount. The NIH will reject your budget outright if it's over. On a center grant you really have to pay attention to the bottom line total as opposed to an R01 where funding needs can be added.
As you begin to draft your budget, you're likely to have many questions. Read each node to view answers to some common questions that arise during the budget-drafting process. For additional information on how to draft a budget and what should be considered during this process, please visit: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/developing_budget.htm
When budgeting for a U54 Research Center, researchers need to realize that they must spend a certain proportion of the budget on various items (e.g., an administrative core). Similarly, some items or activities will be limited by a maximum allowable amount. For a large center grant proposal, the maximum allowable amount for the administration core is 10% of the total direct costs annually.
Allotted costs for budgets must be allowable, allocable, reasonable, necessary, and consistently applied regardless of the source of funds. Throughout the budgeting process, remember to do the following:
Remember that your drafted budget is not expected to be a perfect plan about how you will spend your money five years down the road. However, be thorough enough to convince the reviewers that you have a good sense of the overall costs and how they will be used to support the proposed research.
Know the funding limits. Carefully read the funding opportunity announcement for budget criteria. You should look for limits on the types of expenses (e.g., no construction allowed), spending caps on certain expenses (e.g., travel limited to $10,000), and overall funding limits (e.g., direct vs. total costs or total costs cannot exceed $300,000 per year). Relevant funding opportunity announcement sections include:
Direct Costs Direct Costs are costs identified specifically with a particular sponsored project, an instructional activity, or any other institutional activity or that can be directly assigned to such activities relatively easily with a high degree of accuracy. Indirect, or Facility & Administrative Costs, are costs incurred by a grantee for common or joint objectives and that, therefore, cannot be identified specifically with a particular project or program. These costs are also known as "indirect costs." Please remember, subcontract F&A costs are NOT counted against the direct cost limit for research center proposals (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-004.html for more information).
Read each node to learn about the role and responsibilities of a Grant Administrator and Program Officer.
Responsible for the fiscal, business management, and administrative issues relating to specific grants and grant programs, federal regulations, and agency policies. Grant administrators regularly:
Responsible for the programmatic and scientific aspects of applications and grants. Program Officers monitor the scientific progress of funding applications and advocate what is best for the science. Program Officers regularly:
Information from grants.nih.gov
Now that you've made contact with the Program Officer and asked some vital questions, keep these ideal practices in mind so you can maintain a good relationship with the funder. Because the proposal development process is likely to span a significant amount of time, sometimes close to two full years from initial conversations, it's important to have early and frequent interaction with the PO. As anything new develops, share this information by email to keep the PO in the loop. Attend agency-held technical workshops or webinars. Such workshops may cover the basics of the grant, the funding available, and what the funder envisions scientifically. Be vocal about your research ideas across the agency's various departments to engage as many supporters as possible. Lastly, don't forget to share new research developments as they emerge—spread the word openly and often!
As a Research Development Officer, facilitating team member collaboration is a crucial part of your job. But how do you most effectively facilitate collaboration? Here are some helpful tips:
Regardless of whether researchers are looking to introduce new collaborators or to facilitate efforts on an existing team, several cyberinfrastructure tools are available to aid researchers with these team-building tasks. Here are a few categories of tools with examples of each.
An Intranet is a private computer network that uses Internet log-in and password requirements to securely share information among an established group. This tool serves as a central repository for team documents as well as a forum in which all communication among team members takes place. All of these features ensure that all members have access to the group's data and correspondence. Collaboration sites such as Basecamp (http://basecamphq.com) and activeCollab (http://www.activecollab.com)are examples of Intranet sites that teams might use.
Video conferencing tools may help collaborators connect with one another by allowing distant collaborators to see one another and share documents. When choosing a video conferencing tool, consider your budgetary requirements and the needed functionality (i.e., do you want team members to share their computer screens and/or documents, or do you simply want everyone to see the person they are speaking with?) Available video conferencing options include:
This kind of website allows for the creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages via a web browser using a simplified markup language or text editor. Wikis are typically powered by wiki software and are often used to create collaborative wiki websites, to power community websites for personal note taking, in corporate intranets, and in knowledge management systems. Some wikis, like Wikipedia, give users the editorial ability to remove information considered "off topic." In open purpose wikis, content is accepted without rules as to how it should be organized. Wikis are a great tool to share information and disseminate knowledge across the team through interlinked web pages. An example of a well known and widely used wiki is http://wikipedia.org.
Eight months have passed, and you've learned that your team has been awarded the research center grant! Excellent work! At this stage, your next step is to transition responsibility over to the PI and to separate yourself from the project, so you can focus your attention on catalyzing other new research initiatives. There are several ways to effectively separate from the project at this point: