An investigation into the variables of research administration office staff size at R2 institutions
No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Meeting name
Sponsors
Date
Journal Title
Format
Subject
Abstract
Research administrators play a critical role in managing the staffing needs of Research Administration Offices (RAOs) within higher education institutions. As the complexity of research administration increases, determining the appropriate staff size becomes a significant challenge. This study explores the key variables research administrators consider when determining staff size, using Q methodology to identify distinct perspectives within the field. The purpose of this study is to understand how research administrators prioritize different tasks and responsibilities when making staffing decisions, particularly within R2 institutions as classified by the Carnegie Classification System. The research employed Q methodology to study subjective viewpoints by having participants rank a set of statements according to their level of agreement or importance. Research administrators from R2 institutions participated in a Q-sort exercise, ranking various research administration tasks based on their perceived importance in staffing decisions. Factor analysis was used to identify shared perspectives among participants, revealing distinct patterns in how research administrators allocate personnel. The findings revealed four distinct factors, each representing a unique staffing philosophy. Factor 1 emphasized pre-award support, faculty engagement, and proposal development, with less focus on compliance and policy enforcement. Factor 2 prioritizes regulatory compliance, policy development, and institutional risk management over direct research funding activities. Factor 3 focuses on research growth through increased proposal volume and funding acquisition, highlighting a competitive, pre-award-driven environment. Finally, factor 4 centers on transactional efficiency and regulatory processing, particularly IRB and contract-related tasks, with limited strategic outreach or proposal development. Consensus statements across all factors indicated a shared emphasis on maintaining compliance, ensuring ethical research practices, and aligning staff resources with institutional priorities. However, distinguishing statements highlighted key differences in how research administrators weigh financial oversight, compliance responsibilities, and proposal development in determining staff size. These findings provide actionable insights for RAOs, helping administrators refine staffing models that align with institutional needs and funding landscapes. Additionally, the results contribute to ongoing discussions about staffing strategies in response to changes in the Carnegie Classification System. Understanding these perspectives can help RAOs navigate evolving research administration challenges and advocate for appropriate staffing levels within their institutions.
Table of Contents
Introduction -- Literature review -- Methodology -- Results -- Discussion, conclusions, and recommendations
DOI
PubMed ID
Degree
Ed.D. (Doctor of Education)