Operational and Fiscal Management of Core Facilities: A Survey of Chief Research Officers

IF 0.5 Q4 MANAGEMENT Journal of Research Administration Pub Date : 2019-12-09 DOI:10.13016/M2BCBE-QT5G
J. R. Carter, D. Delahanty, J. E. Strasser, Alicia J. Knoedler, G. Wilson, R. Davis, Don Engel
{"title":"Operational and Fiscal Management of Core Facilities: A Survey of Chief Research Officers","authors":"J. R. Carter, D. Delahanty, J. E. Strasser, Alicia J. Knoedler, G. Wilson, R. Davis, Don Engel","doi":"10.13016/M2BCBE-QT5G","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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 scienti c and clinical capabilities by Chief Research O cers (CROs) represents a more recent shi 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, yeight CROs (or their designee) om 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 o ce (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 di erent types of core facilities directors di ered in their general e ectiveness (F(3,179)=6.88, p<.001); professional sta and administrators were rated as signi cantly more e ective at directing/ Carter, Delahanty, Strasser, Knoedler, Wilson, Davis, Engel","PeriodicalId":43094,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13016/M2BCBE-QT5G","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

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 scienti c and clinical capabilities by Chief Research O cers (CROs) represents a more recent shi 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, yeight CROs (or their designee) om 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 o ce (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 di erent types of core facilities directors di ered in their general e ectiveness (F(3,179)=6.88, p<.001); professional sta and administrators were rated as signi cantly more e ective at directing/ Carter, Delahanty, Strasser, Knoedler, Wilson, Davis, Engel
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
核心设施的运营和财务管理:首席研究官调查
在研究型大学中,在研究人员和实验室之间共享研究设备和人员有着悠久的历史。然而,由首席研究主任(cro)协调管理提供仪器、技术、服务、专家咨询和/或其他科学和临床能力的集中共享资源(即核心设施),代表了该学院最近的一种转变。虽然最近的一些调查和研究集中在核心设施主管和用户的经验上,但还没有对投诉专员进行有针对性的调查。八所研究型大学的研究责任中心(或其指定机构)与公立及赠地大学研究协会合作,完成了一项关于核心设施的电子调查(回复率为35%)。核心设施正式向大学内的一系列实体报告(许多实体向多个实体报告),包括CRO /ce(83%)、学院/学校(67%)、研究所/中心(42%)和系(42%)。40%的受访者表示,他们的大学没有正式的程序来成为和/或保持被认可的核心设施的地位。cro还认为,不同类型的核心设施主管的总体有效性存在差异(F(3,179)=6.88, p< 0.001);专业的教师和行政人员被认为在指挥方面更有效/ Carter, Delahanty, Strasser, Knoedler, Wilson, Davis, Engel
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
50.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A METHOD FOR CREATING NIH DATA TRAINING TABLES WITH REDCAP AND NIH XTRACT. SUSTAINABLE REPORTING FOR A RESILIENT, RESPONSIBLE AND RELIABLE FUTURE: CASE OF INFOSYS OPTIMIZED ACCESS-CONTROL FRAMEWORK FOR REVITALIZING THE SECURITY OF PATIENT-CENTRIC ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS Implementation of a Pilot Project Program to Expand Research on Alcohol Use Disorders in American Indian and Alaska Native Communities. The University of Minnesota's Clinical Research Support Center Feasibility Review: An objective protocol assessment carving a pathway to study success.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1