| 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 |
| Abstractor: |
As Provided |
| Entry Date: |
2019 |
| Accession Number: |
EJ1237833 |
| Database: |
ERIC |