Consider the stakeholders in research administration. (Shop Talk).

Introduction

Research grant and contract administrators have a great number of individuals, causes, constituencies, and institutions to which loyalty, accountability, and stewardship are expected. This paper includes a discussion of strategies to assist us strike the balance most likely to satisfy obligations, while recognizing that some stakeholders' interests may be in conflict.

Stakeholders, a term in common use for several decades in the United States (US), often refers to those individuals, causes, constituencies, and institutions that are likely to be affected by actions taken on a certain issue. The term also commonly includes those who would, or should, care most about outcomes. For all stakeholders, there are varying degrees of vested interest and levels of risk. For instance, a project director and institution may be staking their reputations as well as human and other resources; a sponsor may be taking a financial risk, while subjects may be staking their good health or very lives on the outcome of a project.

Research grant and contract administrators, as frequent administrators of finds in the public interest, have a host of stakeholders associated with every agreement they negotiate and every project their organizations support or choose not to support. In any given year, they encounter a myriad of stakeholders to whom they owe allegiance and accountability, because of their vested interest in the outcomes. A stakeholder situation is comparable to a horse race--there are a number of investors, each with competing interests and all hoping to gain something from the result, either outright as a win or as a share of the pot.

Strategies for Action

Several researchers focusing on leadership, decision-making, public policy, public administration in general, and research administration in particular, have studied and proposed strategies to assess stakeholders' interests. In his book Catalytic Leadership: Strategies for an Interconnected World (1998, p. 69), Jeffrey Luke cites J. Bryson and B. Crosby (1992) and W. R. King (1984) as defining stakeholders as: (a) those most likely to be affected by the issue (or outcome), (b) those who have expressed interests or opinions, (c) those who may be in a position to apply positive or negative pressure on the issue, and (d) those who ought to care, whether or not this has been expressed. Luke points out (p. 70) one drawback to stakeholder analyses, which focus solely on these usual subjects. He says that two important groups of individuals who add valuable insights and energy to the effort may be overlooked, knowledge-holders and ripple-effect stakeholders.

Many RAs have a clear appreciation for knowledge-holder stakeholders, such as academic researchers, think-tank analysts, and institutional and policy planners, who may or may not be affected directly by the causes or consequences of a given issue or decision. Luke sees four roles played by such knowledge-holders:

1. Aid those discussing issues and making decisions in presenting concerns and options in more informed ways and with greater technical sophistication.

2. Help individuals to gain knowledge and insights to more clearly communicate interests.

3. Raise current, foreseen or taboo issues which others may be fearful to publicly address.

4. Fuel a broader analysis of what may become recognized as an interconnected problem.

Such knowledge experts should be consulted by RAs early in the process, or it may be necessary to do so later when corrective action is more difficult. Knowledge-holder stakeholders can enlighten and positively influence goals, objectives, methods, budget, or evaluation, and help to persuade others to give resources. They may be found in fields beyond the project director's or RA's areas of expertise. On the other hand, knowledge-holders may introduce damaging or conflicting information and raise questions as to the legitimacy of a group or its decisions; they can also prevent approval by key organizations, legislators, or others needed to implement or sustain action (Wood and Gray, 1991 as cited in Luke 1998, p. 73).

Ripple-effect stakeholders are those who are affected by second-, third-, or fourthorder effects. If they are identified, these entities may become vocal advocates for a cause. For instance, Luke describes the advocacy of the U. S. insurance industry, allying itself with environmental groups to focus attention on global warming. Although the insurance industry is certainly not the first to be thought of when considering global warming, it is most certainly a stakeholder in the issue of dramatic climate change and dramatic meteorological events. It is joined by a kind of rainbow coalition, (environmental groups, emergency managers, other governmental organizations, and concerned citizens), who share concerns about major weather changes, flood risks, and losses of life and property. As another example, small business coalitions, community or trade associations might join large industry, agribusiness, and consumer groups in supporting projects to reduce energy costs, since these costs, as a proportion of total c osts of doing business, may be higher for sinai]. neighborhood businesses such as printers and bakeries than for the big players.

The Agency for International Development (AID) received guidance from the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) on how to conduct a stakeholder analysis. The authors point out that stakeholder analysis should be done at the beginning of a project. Such an analysis can assist in predicting a project's riskiness or viability. It can contribute to project design through a logical framework and identify appropriate forms of stakeholder participation. The latter is often most difficult. Deciding how, when, and where to receive direct input and whether it will be treated as advice, recommendation, or policy, are examples of strategy choices.

A frequent suggestion in the literature in this area is construction of a stakeholder roster, table, or matrix for a complex project. Many RAs could readily construct a matrix for a modest individual project or for their entire unit's work in strategic planning. More complex projects, however, require broader consideration and input from others. In a sample matrix, key elements of the project at hand from preplanning through dissemination of results could form the horizontal entries. Vertical columns might include internal stakeholders (such as PIs, internal collaborating partners., department heads, deans/directors, public relations, compliance officers, post-award managers, etc., each with an investment in outcome), external stakeholders (such as sponsors, partners, communities, beneficiaries, compliance agencies, government leaders, trade, charitable or religious organizations, etc.), as well as knowledge-holder and ripple-effect stakeholders.

It may be difficult, however, to assess the relative power and influence that each stakeholder may bring to a project. The ODA lists a number of variables that affect stakeholders' power and influence. These include:

1. Legal hierarchy (command and control, budget holders)

2. Authority of leadership, both formal and informal (also charisma, political, familial, or cadre connections)

3. Control of strategic resources for the project

4. Possession of specialist knowledge

5. Negotiating position (strength in relation to other stakeholders in the project)

6. Social, economic, and political status

7. Degree of organization, consensus, and leadership in the group

8. Degree of control of strategic resources significant for the project

9. Informal influence through links with other stakeholders

10. Degree of dependence on other stakeholders

11. Assessing importance to project success

Application

Power is related, but is not identical, to the importance of a stakeholder. Affected parties may have little capacity to participate in the project and limited power to influence key decisions, even though the project has a key impact on them. Indeed, some of the most important stakeholders are the powerless. In considering importance, seek to answer the following questions.

1. What problems, affecting which stakeholders, does the project seek to address or alleviate?

2. For which stakeholders does the project place a priority on meeting their needs, interests, and expectations?

3. Which stakeholder interests converge most closely with policy and project objectives?

Ronald Heifetz in Leadership Without Easy Answers (1994) makes interesting points on the politics of inclusion. He states that inclusion means considering people's views when defining the problem, but not automatically giving them their way. In cases of competing interests, some may even experience losses. An important part of including all stakeholders is challenging them, hard and steadily, as Heifetz says (1994, p. 240) to face new perspectives on familiar problems. Some may need to shed old ideas and even ways of life that are familiar. This is difficult for the change agent and difficult for those who must readjust their thinking and goals.

Heifetz talks about two important lessons that we can learn from the framers of the U. S. Constitution (pp. 241-242). First, he believes that it was the correct decision for the founding fathers at the Federal Convention in 1787 to first reach the vital agreement on forming the union and deferring until later settling the issue of slavery. His point is that if slavery had been made an integral part of the first Constitution that agreement would never have been reached. The divisiveness of the issue, particularly North to South, was too powerful along with all of the other significant differences in perspective. It was immensely difficult for these strong individuals with differing views, and much at stake, to hammer out agreement on issues of local versus national control, state's rights, and the sharing of powers. But the second lesson is as important as the first--they waited far too long to revisit and resolve the unconscionable slavery issue.

The daily work of RAs may not deal with such immense societal issues, but they do deal with important ones with troubling loose ends after the basic agreements are reached. Their role is to help our project directors, administrators, sponsors, compliance officers, and others resolve those troubling remaining issues as soon as possible. Most RAs shy away from outright confrontation, priding themselves on their abilities to see more than one side on any issue and their abilities to successfully and amicably negotiate agreements. However, in complex situations involving multiple stakeholders, they must on occasion face the outrage of those who perceive loss and/or are unwilling to change. RAs must maintain composure as they seek to educate and to persuade. And they must be clear-headed on what is truly important, and adapt to necessary change when, inevitably, the day comes to do so.

References

Baker, J.G., and Wohlpart, A (1998). Research administration in colleges and universities: Characteristics and resources including a survey of chief research officers funding, resources, and functions 1996. Research Management Review, 10, 1, 33-48.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Luke, J. S. (1998). Catalytic leadership: Strategies for an interconnected world. San Francisco: The Jossey-Bass Nonprofit and Public Management Series.

Overseas Development Administration (July 1995). Guidance note on how to do stakeholder analysis of AID projects and programmes, Social Development Department retrieved on 21 January 2001 from http://www.oneworld.org/euforic/gb/stakel.htm

Streharsky, C. (2001). Toward ethical leadership: A 12-step plan. Research Management Review 12, 1. Retrieve at http://www.ncura.edu/rmr/v12n1.pdf

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, media release. Taking steps to strengthen our research partnership with American universities, 10 January 2001. Retrieve at http://www.ostp.gov/html/011001_2.html

Charmaine Streharsky, EdD, CRA, is Director-Emeritus of Research Services and Sponsored Programs and a former Visiting Assistant Professor in Public Administration and Urban Studies at The University of Akron. At present she teaches part-time in the Department of Public Administration at The University of Akron in areas that include grantsmanship, leadership, decision-making, and ethics in public service. Dr. Streharsky has more than 20 years of experience in public administration including grant and contract administration. She has published and presented for both SRA and NCURA.

Charlene Smith, MPA, holds a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of the Virgin Islands (St. Thomas) and masters' degrees in Public Administration and in Urban Studies from the University of Akron (Ohio).

Author's Note: The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the editorial reviewers. An earlier version of this paper was originally presented to the Ohio Society of Research Administrators Meeting, 23-24 April 2001 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Please contact the corresponding author, Charmaine Streharsky through Email at [e-mail]