Everyone's mentor: perceptions of research administrators on the value of certification.

Delimitations and Limitations

The study is delimited to research administrators based in the Southeastern region of the United States as defined by the National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA). This sample population was selected because the author is well known in this region due to previously held leadership positions attained as a result of membership voting, presentations made at various meetings, and participation in numerous other activities involving regional membership. It was anticipated that response rate to the survey administered would likely yield the best results if the aforementioned population was utilized. An additional delimitation pertains to the half of the sample population that has achieved certification because in order to be included in the study the Certified Research Administrator (CRA) must have achieved certification prior to February 1, 2005.

This study is limited since it is assumed respondents will answer the survey questions honestly. Furthermore, the accuracy and currency of the records obtained from the NCURA, SRA, and RACC could not be controlled.

Introduction

Certification programs are designed to confirm that individuals in a given profession possess the fundamental knowledge necessary to serve their employer and profession in the best possible manner. Gilley and Galbraith (1986) define certification as the process by which a professional organization or an independent external agency recognizes the competence of individual practitioners.

There is often a great deal of confusion associated with the term certification. For example, Bratton and Hildebrand (1980) emphasize that professional certification should not be confused with teacher education certification because the term teacher certification is a misnomer. Instead, it is a licensing mechanism regulated by a local body. Since teachers are required to hold a valid certificate in order to teach in the public school system, the teacher education certification is, in reality, a license to teach. Parker and Smith (2004) report that processes established for certifying and licensing practitioners share important credentialing related commonalities, but the primary difference often misunderstood is that licensure is mandatory and certification is voluntary. Galbraith and Gilley (1985) contend this confusion biases many educators regarding the certification issue and narrows the examination and discussion of professional certification. Penland (1982) asserts that this confusion has resulted in misunderstanding and frustration on the part of those concerned with the topic of professional certification and has impeded communication. Galbraith and Gilley (1985) maintain that certification, licensure, and accreditation each attempt to regulate the measurement of competencies, however; the methodology, population, and purposes of regulations differ. For example, in McCue (2003), Schoon and Smith indicated that licensure is the granting of a license by a governmental body to practice a profession, while certification is thought of as a means of promoting achievement within a discipline. Certification is not a property right to practice a profession; instead, it is a voluntary achieved standard of excellence for an individual.

According to Bratton and Hildebrand (1980) certification is often perceived as being the same as accreditation and licensure. Distinctions between certification, accreditation, and licensure need to be recognized in order to place professional certification in correct context and avoid confusion in use of terminology. The following table provided by Bratton and Hildebrand (1980) offers a succinct comparison of accreditation, licensure, and certification.

Introduction

Bratton and Hildebrand (1980) offer the following definitions to help clarify the distinctions between certification, accreditation, and licensure.

Certification--the process by which a professional organization or an independent external agency recognizes the competence of individual practitioners.

Accreditation--the process whereby an agency or an association grants public recognition to a school, college, or university, or specialized study program that meets certain predetermined qualifications or standards.

Licensure--a mandatory legal requirement for certain professions in order to protect the public from incompetent practitioners. Licensing procedures are generally established or implemented by a political governing body that prescribes practice without a license.

According to various authors (Bratton & Hildebrand, 1980; Mason, 1984; Galbraith & Gilley, 1986; McCue, 2003) certification is a voluntary achieved standard of excellence for an individual practitioner recognized by a peer group. The focus of this study falls under this category of credentialing identified in the literature as professional certification.

The Research Administrators Certification Council (RACC) was formed in conjunction with the Society of Research Administrators International (SRA) in 1993 with the primary purpose of certifying that an individual, through experience and testing, has the fundamental knowledge necessary to be a professional research or sponsored programs administrator (Research Administrators Certification Council, 2004). Since the RACC was formed in 1993, 501 research administration professionals have achieved certification (Research Administrators Certification Council).

This study sought to determine whether those who have attained the Certificate in Research Administration (CRA) perceive a benefit to their careers and why most research administrators do not attempt certification. The primary research question studied is concerned with the relationship between perceived value of the CRA to research administration professionals and demographic characteristics. Five research questions guided the investigation.

Statement of the Problem

The value of certification in the field of research administration is not known. Research administration professionals do not know whether certification has benefited the careers of those who have achieved it, or why most research administrators do not attempt certification. The primary focus of the study was concerned with the relationship between perceived value of the Certificate in Research Administration (CRA) to research administration professionals and demographic characteristics.

Methodology

An Internet-based survey instrument was developed to collect data from certified research administrators (CRAs) and non-certified research administrators. The survey collected demographic information to help describe the relationship between the demographic characteristics of the population and perception of value. A pilot study was conducted to determine the survey instrument's work under realistic conditions. The survey instrument was then distributed via an electronic mail notification and included a link to an Internet site where the survey could be completed online. Three electronic mail requests followed by personal telephone calls to those who did not respond to the electronic mail requests resulted in a return of 230 usable surveys or an 83% rate of return.

The primary focus of the study was concerned with the relationship between perceived value of the Certificate in Research Administration (CRA) to research administration professionals and demographic characteristics.

Population and Sample

The population of respondents for this study included research administrators based in the Southeastern region of the National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA). According to the NCURA (2005), 1,101 members are based in the Southeastern region.

A list of 501 research administrators who have achieved certification was obtained from the Research Administrators Certification Council (RACC), and the list revealed that 147 of the research administrators who have achieved certification are from the Southeastern region of the NCURA. These 147 individuals were selected to represent half of the overall sample population for this study. The other half of the sample population was randomly selected from a list of non-certified members based in the Southeastern region.

The list of certified research administrators provided by the RACC only included the names, affiliation, and city of the individuals. In order to obtain complete contact information for the certified research administrators, further research was necessary as RACC did not readily provide complete contact information upon request. NCURA and SRA membership databases were utilized in an attempt to find complete contact information for the 147 certified research administrators based in the Southeast region of the NCURA. A search of these two sources revealed contact information for 84 of the 147 certified research administrators based in the Southeast region of NCURA. A search of university Web sites provided the necessary contact information for 34 additional individuals. Contact information for the remaining 29 individuals was obtained through Internet searches, telephone calls, and through contacting individuals known to the researcher who were affiliated with the same organization as the CRA. Contact information was verified, edited, and resulted in a final count of 134 certified research administrators based in the Southeast region of NCURA.

The list of 1,101 research administrators based in the Southeast region of NCURA was used to draw a random sample of 147 non-certified research administrators. Sixty-eight (68) of the individuals included in the list of 1,101 were deleted since they were already included in the certified research administrator sample population. The author of this paper was also deleted from the list of l, 101, leaving a total 1,032 non-certified research administrators based in the Southeast region of the NCURA from which a random sample of 147 was drawn. This resulted in 126 verified and willing participants.

Since there were more non-certified research administrators based in the Southeast region of NCURA to draw a random sample from, a second random sample of 21 was drawn in an effort to identify more respondents. The list the second random sample of 21 was drawn from was narrowed to 885 after the 147 from the first random sample were eliminated from the list. The second random sample resulted in 17 additional potential respondents that could be verified. Of the remaining 4 individuals identified in the second random sample, 2 could not be located, and 2 were unresponsive. Contact information was verified, edited, and resulted in a final count of 143 non-certified research administrators based in the Southeast region of NCURA.

A total of 277 potential respondents comprised the overall sample population for this study. 134 were identified as certified research administrators, and 143 were identified as non-certified research administrators. Each potential respondent was contacted by telephone or e-mail and notified that this study was in progress. Confirmation of contact information for all potential respondents was checked for accuracy and edited as necessary.

A third random sample of 5 was drawn from the list of non-certified research administrators after a situation arose subsequent to the initial distribution of the survey instrument. One of the potential respondents indicated it was the policy of that particular institution to receive Institutional Review Board approval for any study involving students or employees of that institution. Despite already having obtained the appropriate Institutional Review Board approval, the researcher was asked to refrain from sending additional surveys to students or employees of that particular institution unless Institutional Review Board approval from that particular institution was obtained for this study. Considering this circumstance the researcher elected to draw a third random sample of 5 since all the potential respondents from this institution were non-certified research administrators who could be replaced. One individual from this particular institution had already freely responded to the initial survey invitation, so their response was maintained. The researcher complied with the request from this institution by not resending the survey to any potential respondent from that institution. Contact information for all 5 of the potential respondents from the third random sample were verified, notified of the study, and identified themselves as willing participants in the study after being contacted by the researcher.

In summary, the population of respondents for this study included 277 research administrators based in the Southeastern region of the National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA).

Summary and Discussion of the Findings

The summary findings and discussion of the data collected for the five research questions of this study are presented below:

Research Question 1

What is the perception of certified research administrators compared to non-certified research administrators in regard to the value of certification?

The relationship between the demographic characteristics of research administrators and the level of agreement in regard to the perceived value of the Certificate in Research Administration (CRA) was analyzed to determine if perceptions of value were different between CRAs and non-certified research administrators. There was a statistically significant difference (<.0006) between how CRAs perceive the value of certification and how non-certified research administrators perceive the value of certification. CRAs perception of the value of certification was significantly greater than that of non-certified research administrators.

Age, educational level, salary, and length of employment in the field of research administration were the demographic characteristics selected to compare the perceived value of certification between certified research administrators and non-certified research administrators. The interaction effect was found to be not statistically significant. The closest demographic characteristic to approach statistical significance (<.0562) was perception of value and educational level. Interaction effect is the variation among the differences between means for different levels of one factor over different levels of the other factor.

In response to the question, Do you feel more knowledgeable as a research administrator as a result of becoming certified, the overwhelming majority of the CRAs indicated they did feel more knowledgeable as a result of becoming certified. In response to the question, Do you believe you would feel more knowledgeable as a research administrator if you were certified, the majority of non-certified research administrators indicated that they would feel more knowledgeable, but it was by a much smaller margin as almost as many perceived that being certified would not make a difference.

In response to the question, Do you feel more confident in your ability to do your work as a research administrator as a result of becoming certified, CRAs indicated they did feel more confident. In response to the question, Do you believe you would feel more confident in your ability to do your work as a research administrator if you were certified, the majority of the non-certified respondents indicated that they would not feel more confident or that being certified would not make a difference.

Analyses of both summary data and selected demographic variables revealed that CRAs consistently perceived the value of certification to be greater than non-certified research administrators did.

Research Question 2

What is the relationship of demographic characteristics to the attainment of certification?

Age, educational level, salary, and length of employment in the field of research administration were the demographic characteristics selected to compare the perceived value of certification between CRAs and non-certified research administrators.

In regard to the demographic characteristic of age, there was a statistically significant relationship (<.0373) between age and certification status of research administrators. Of the respondents who indicated they were not certified, the majority indicated they were less than 39 years old. This indicates that younger non-certified research administrators may not value certification as much as those over 40. This may be as a result of being undecided in terms of their career, being unaware of the opportunity to become certified, or being employed at an institution that is not supportive of certification.

In regard to the demographic characteristic of educational level, there was not a statistically significant relationship (<.3729), although the pattern of the results was similar to the pattern formed by the statistically significant demographic characteristics. This indicates that non-certified research administrators who already hold a doctorate may feel they do not need to become certified, and CRAs with an Associate's Degree or less education may feel they do need to become certified to show evidence of their expertise.

In regard to the demographic characteristic of salary, there was a statistically significant relationship (<.0001) between salary and certification status of research administrators. The majority of the respondents who indicated they were not certified earned less than $40,000 annually or more than $80,000 annually. This suggests that non-certified research administrators who earn less than $40,000 annually may not perceive certification as being valuable and those earning more than $80,000 annually may not perceive the need to become certified. The majority of CRAs earned between $40,000 and $80,000 annually. Less than 3%, or 3 of 108 CRAs, earned less than $40,000 annually.

In regard to the demographic characteristic of length of employment as a research administrator, there was a statistically significant relationship (<.0001) between length of employment in the field of research administration and certification status of research administrators. The majority of the respondents who indicated they were not certified were employed in the field of research administration for less than 10 years with most of them being employed in the field for between 3 and 10 years. This was important to note since the RACC required a minimum of three years of work experience in the field of research administration before research administrators became eligible to take the certification exam. Not only were research administrators ineligible to take the certification exam with less than 3 years of experience, the data revealed that they also did not take the exam after they became eligible. This leads to the conclusion that non-certified research administrators who are early in their careers are not becoming certified.

Research Question 3

To what extent do certified research administrators attribute their career advancement, self-confidence, and enhanced knowledge of the field to certification?

Certified and non-certified research administrators were asked a set of questions pertaining to their perceptions of certification being beneficial to their career in terms of eight characteristics and two specific questions pertaining exclusively to enhanced knowledge and confidence.

The summary findings and discussion of the data collected for the eight characteristics are presented below:

1. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the certified research administrators (CRAs) agreed or strongly agreed that others more fully recognize their ability to perform their job compared to 50% of the non-certified research administrators. This perception is consistent with the perceived value of certification being greater for CRAs than non-certified research administrators. Although there is a significant difference in perception between CRAs and non-certified research administrators, the majority of non-certified research administrators still agreed or strongly agreed that others would more fully recognize their ability to perform their job.

2. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of the CRAs agreed or strongly agreed that their prestige among individuals within their organization increased as a result of becoming certified compared to 43% of non-certified research administrators. This perception is consistent with the perceived value of certification being greater for CRAs than non-certified research administrators. The majority of non-certified research administrators did not perceive certification making a difference in terms of increased prestige among individuals within their organization.

3. Seventy percent (70%) of the CRAs agreed or strongly agreed that their prestige among individuals outside their organization increased as a result of becoming certified compared to 61% of the non-certified research administrators. Although there was a small difference in perception between CRAs and non-certified research administrators in regard to this characteristic, the majority of non-certified research administrators positively perceived the value of certification in terms of prestige among individuals outside their organization.

4. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the CRAs agreed or strongly agreed that their prestige among superiors within their organization was greater as a result of becoming certified compared to 45% of the non-certified research administrators. This perception is consistent with the perceived value of certification being greater for CRAs than non-certified research administrators. The majority of non-certified research administrators did not think certification made a difference in terms of prestige among superiors within their organization.

5. Fifty-percent (50%) of the CRAs indicated no difference in regard to certification being beneficial in terms of increased professional opportunities for contributions compared to 46% of the non-certified research administrators. Forty-eight (48%) of the non-certified research administrators agreed or strongly agreed that they perceived a benefit. The perceptions of both CRAs and non-certified research administrators were similar in regard to certification being beneficial in terms of increased professional opportunities for contributions, but slightly more non-certified research administrators agreed or strongly agreed that there was a perceived a benefit.

6. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the CRAs indicated no difference in regard to certification leading to increased job responsibilities as a result of certification compared to 61% of the non-certified research administrators. The perceptions of both CRAs and non-certified research administrators were similar in regard to certification leading to increased job responsibilities.

7. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the CRAs agreed or strongly agreed that their salary increased as a result of becoming certified compared to 30% of the non-certified research administrators. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the CRAs indicated no difference that their salary increased as a result of becoming certified compared to 56% of the non-certified research administrators. The perceptions of both CRAs and non-certified research administrators were similar in regard to certification leading to an increase in salary.

8. Twenty-nine percent (29%) of CRAs agreed or strongly agreed that they would receive a promotion as a result of becoming certified compared to 31% of non-certified research administrators. Sixty-six percent (66%) of the CRAs indicated no difference that they would receive a promotion as a result of becoming certified compared to 55% of the non-certified research administrators. The perceptions of both CRAs and non-certified research administrators were similar in regard to certification leading to a promotion.

The summary findings and discussion of the data collected for enhanced knowledge and confidence are presented below:

In terms of enhanced knowledge, 74% of the CRAs indicated they do feel more knowledgeable as a research administrator as a result of becoming certified compared to 40% of the non-certified research administrators.

Although there is a significant difference of perception between CRAs and non-certified research administrators, the majority of non-certified research administrators still indicated they would feel more knowledgeable as a result of certification.

In terms of confidence, 74% of the CRAs indicated they felt more confident in their ability to do their work as a result of becoming certified compared to 36% of the non-certified research administrators. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of non-certified research administrators indicated they would not feel more confident in their ability to do their work as a result of certification.

Research Question 4

What reasons, if any, do non-certified research administration professionals give for not attempting certification?

Eighty-two percent (82%), or 96 of 117, of the non-certified research administrators provided a reason for not attempting certification, with 40%, or 38 of 96, indicating they did not believe there was any benefit to becoming certified. There was a tie for the second most popular reason for not attempting certification, with not having enough time and not being aware of the opportunity to become a CRA each garnering 11%, or 11 of 96, of the responses of reasons for not attempting certification. Despite the perception of the majority of non-certified research administrators doubting the value of certification, some of the reasons provided by non-certified research administrators suggest they are not opposed to the concept of becoming a CRA. As examples of this, none of the following are individual objections to the concept of certification: (1) a current employer does not support a research administrator's effort to become certified, (2) a research administrator is not eligible to sit for the exam, and (3) a research administrator takes the exam but does not pass.

Overall, the majority of non-certified research administrators do not believe there is benefit to becoming certified. However, when all the other reasons for not attempting certification are closely examined, the responses taken as a whole indicate that as many non-certified research administrators may perceive a benefit to becoming certified as those who do not perceive a benefit. These data indicate that non-certified research administrators perceive some benefit to certification.

Research Question 5

What relationship, if any, exists between the value placed by certified and non-certified research administrators in a supervisory role when they evaluate the qualifications of applicants for positions in research administration?

The relationship between the value placed by certified and non-certified research administrators in a supervisory role when they evaluate the qualifications of applicants for positions in research administration and the perceived value of the Certificate in Research Administration (CRA) were analyzed. These data revealed that there is a statistically significant difference (<.0001) between the perceptions of CRA supervisors and non-certified research administrator supervisors regarding the value of certification.

Research administrators who were certified and who served in a supervisory role were more likely to include a preference for Certified Research Administrators (CRAs) when they advertised for research administration positions, give preference to CRAs when they hire, and were more likely to negotiate a higher starting salary for CRAs. They also perceived hiring CRAs as being more beneficial to their organizations in terms of people within the organization more fully recognizing a CRAs ability to perform their job, increased credibility of the employee within the organization, increased credibility of the employee outside their organization, and increased professional contributions.

The perception of CRAs who was supervisors and non-certified research administrators who was supervisors was similar to those of CRAs and in general. CRAs perception of value in regard to the CRA was greater than that of non-certified research administrators.

Discussion of Findings

This study sought to determine the value of certification in the field of research administration and was concerned with the relationship between perceived value of the Certificate in Research Administration (CRA) to research administration professionals and demographic characteristics.

In terms of personal demographic characteristics, research administrators are an educated group of professionals, with 84%, or 189 of 226, holding at least a Bachelor's Degree. The majority of respondents ranged in age from 30-59, with 90%, or 203 of 226, falling in this category. The majority of the respondents were from doctoral granting research universities, and they were classified as coordinators or professional staff with an annual salary of $40,001-$50,000 and had been employed in the field of research administration for 5-10 years. Most respondents initially became involved in the field of research administration by working in another area of the university not directly related to research administration and had transferred to a predominantly research administration position or had no related experience or expertise prior to becoming a research administrator.

The research revealed that CRAs and non-certified research administrators both held negative views of the value of the CRA with regard to some specific characteristics. For example, certification was perceived by both CRAs and non-certified research administrators as not making any difference in terms of increased job responsibilities, salary increases, and promotion. This indicated that research administrators in general doubted that certification would lead to increased job responsibilities, promotions, or salary increases.

There were also some positive views toward certification that were shared between CRAs and non-certified research administrators. Both groups perceived benefit in terms of prestige among individuals outside their organization increasing as a result of becoming certified and others more fully recognizing their ability to perform their jobs. These findings led to the conclusion that research administrators did not believe that their organizations internally value certification, whereas research administrators did perceive value external to their own organizations.

In terms of feeling more knowledgeable as a result of certification, 83% of CRAs and 45% of non-certified research administrators' believed they would feel more knowledgeable as a result of certification. Despite this significant difference in perception, the majority of both CRAs and non-certified research administrators perception was that becoming certified would, or did, enhance their knowledge as research administrators.

The research revealed some differences in the perception of value of the CRA in terms of research administrators feeling that their prestige among individuals within their organizations would increase and their prestige among superiors within their organization would increase as a result of becoming certified. CRAs overwhelmingly agreed or strongly agreed that their prestige was enhanced within their organizations, and non-certified research administrators perceived there would be no difference in their prestige. This leads to the conclusion that CRA's perception of value is greater than that of non-certified research administrators' perception of value in prestige among individuals and superiors within their organizations.

The research revealed two additional subtle differences in the perception of value in terms of increased professional opportunities to contribute and increased confidence in their ability to perform their work as a result of certification. Slightly more non-certified research administrators agreed or strongly agreed that certification would increase their professional opportunities for contributions, whereas CRAs perception was that there would be no difference in their opportunities for professional contributions. There was also a minor difference in feeling more confident in ability to do their work as a research administrator, with slightly more non-certified research administrators' perceiving they would not feel more confident compared to CRAs dominant perception that they did feel more confident in their ability to do their work as a research administrator.

Implications and Recommendations for Professional Organizations

The National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA) and the Society for Research Administrators International (SRA) are the two primary professional organizations dedicated exclusively to the field of research administration. Research administrators' perceptions of NCURA and SRA professional development opportunities are extremely positive with 90% of respondents reporting positive or extremely positive experiences with professional development opportunities offered through these organizations. The Research Administration Certification Council (RACC) was established in conjunction with the SRA; however, there is no association with NCURA, and since the establishment of RACC in 1993 there has not been a strong coordinated effort between RACC and SRA that has been recognized by research administrators as being of vital importance to them personally or the profession in general. Professional organizations could potentially benefit from offering certification programs to research administrators through financial gain and being recognized as positively serving their membership (Knapp and Gallery, 2003).

There are many perceived positive implications of certification among research administrators, including enhanced prestige among individuals outside one's own organization and enhanced personal knowledge. If RACC is to be widely recognized as a value to individuals and their respective institutions, it needs to be more closely aligned with the professional organizations that research administrators report having positive professional development experiences. Since the professional field of research administration emerged, it has consistently grown larger, and universities have been forced to pay close attention to the administration of research dollars and the fostering of the research enterprise in general. It is reasonable to assume hiring the most knowledgeable research administrators would be a high priority to universities. Since the vast majority of research administrators enter the profession with little or no experience in the field, it should be extremely important to employers to have high quality and comprehensive professional development opportunities readily available for newcomers to the field.

Even though both CRAs and non-certified research administrators doubt the value of certification in terms of increased job responsibility, promotions, and salary, CRAs report earning more money on an annual basis than do their non-certified counterparts. The only exception is those earning more than $80,000 annually. The majority of those earning more than $80,000 annually are not certified, and it is concluded that those individuals do not feel they need to become certified.

In summary, a comprehensive certification program in the professional field of research administration has strong potential to serve individuals, organizations, and sponsors of research in an effective and positive way. In order to accomplish this, a comprehensive certification program should be closely aligned with the two major professional organizations dedicated exclusively to the professional field of research administration.

Recommendations for Future Research

Further research is suggested in the following areas:

1. It is recommended that a replication of this study be done in another region of the United States to further validate the results.

2. It is recommended that a replication of this study be done on an international scale to further validate the results.

3. It is recommended that research be conducted to determine if curriculum at the university level should be developed in research administration management.

4. It is recommended that the primary professional organizations in support of research administration engage in research to determine how many people are involved in the profession of research administration to help make decisions in regard to continuing adult education.

5. It is recommended that research be conducted focusing on the employers of research administration professionals to determine if they would value being served by a Certified Research Administrator (CRA) through the Research Administrators Certification Council (RACC).

6. It is recommended that the primary professional organizations in support of research administration engage in research about specific needs and preferences of their membership.

Conclusion

The death of our friend and colleague Herbert "Chuck" Chermside leaves all research administrators with the professional responsibility of defining what it means to be a research administration professional. In his professional life Chuck consistently challenged us all to be the best we could be. He constantly thought of ways in which professional development and continuing education could enhance our profession. He not only thought about it, he acted on it. The responsibility of carrying on this legacy is now ours, and it is up to research administrators worldwide to constantly challenge ourselves to be the best we can possibly be.

Author Note

This article is dedicated to the memory of our friend and colleague Herbert "Chuck" Chermside who unexpectedly passed away on June 22, 2006. Chuck was a staunch advocate of professional development and continuing education opportunities for research administration professionals. He was one of the research administrator pioneers who worked hard to establish the Research Administration Certification Council (RACC), an organization providing an opportunity for research administrators to certify through experience and testing that they have the fundamental knowledge necessary to be a professional research or sponsored programs administrator. This article was previously published as a paper in the 2005 Symposium proceedings of the Society of Research Administrators International. It was originally developed by the author based on his doctoral dissertation research in the Department of Educational Research, Technology, and Leadership in the College of Education at the University of Central Florida.

References

Bratton, B. & Hildebrand, M. (1980). Plain talk about professional certification. Instructional Innovator, 25(9).

Galbraith, M. W. & Gilley, J. W. (1986). Professional Certification: Implications for adult education and HRD. Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational Education, National Center Publications, National Center for Research in Vocational Education, Columbus, Ohio.

Galbraith, M. W. & Gilley, J. W. (1985). An examination of professional certification. Lifelong Learning, 9(2).

Gilley, J. W. & Galbraith, M. W. (1986). Examining professional certification. Training and Development Journal, 40(6).

Hansen, S. & Moreland, K. (2004). The Janus face of research administration. Research Management Review, 14(1).

Mason, I. W. (1984). Influence of the certificate in data processing on career development (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3685.

McCue, D. L. (2003). The National Association of Industrial Technology Certification exam: Quality control assessment using item response theory and classical test theory methodologies (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 3224.

National Council of University Research Administrators (2005). National Council of University Research Administrators Database, Accessed February 9, 2005, One Dupont Circle NW, Suite 220, Washington, DC.

Parker, W. & Smith, G. (2004, November). Certification as a predictor of quality performance. Paper presented at the National Organization for Competency Assurance, Miami, FL.

Penland, P. R. (1982). Certification of school media specialists. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16(1).

Research Administrators Certification Council (2005). Retrieved February 26, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://cra-cert.org/Default.htm

Research Administrators Certification Council (2004). Retrieved November 16, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http:// cra-cert.org/activecra.htm

Research Administrators Certification Council (2004). Retrieved March 27, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://cracert.org/Default.htm

Thomas Roberts, EdD

Associate Vice President for Research

Florida Gulf Coast University 

Office of Research and Sponsored Programs

10501 FGCU Blvd., South

Fort Myers, FL 33965-6565

239-590-7021

[e-mail] 

Table 1: Comparison of Accreditation, Licensure, and Certification

Type of            Recipient of   Credentialing        Required or
Credential         Credential     Body                 Voluntary

Accreditation      Programs       Association/Agency   Voluntary
Licensure          Individuals    Political Body       Required
Certification      Individuals    Association/Agency   Voluntary