In this issue.

In this third issue of the journal, we look at change from a variety of perspectives. In the opening feature, Engaging the Humanities? Research Ethics in Canada, Michael Owen addresses a major researcher and institutional transition issue we will all face over the next few years. This preliminary evaluation of Canada's common set of guidelines for the treatment of human subjects in all research reflects the fact that humanities and fine arts faculty have not internalized change. The article presents a good synopsis of faculty and administrative concerns and reasons to resist change.

This issue's case study highlights an innovation from the SUNY system to improve the protection of human research participants through organized approaches and non-threatening peer review. The material is sufficient to assist others in thinking through possible applications of the approach to their institution. We will look forward to a longer-term evaluation of the effects of this voluntary and anticipatory program in a few years.

Our Shop Talk articles begin with a synthesis on change in the field of research administration from two leaders, Marcia Landen and Michael McCallister. The vast growth in the scope of responsibilities and new technological applications require our colleagues to diversify while many of our institutions are slow to change. Just as in the business world, we must plan for change; four keys to success are speed, specialization, competitive knowledge workers, and empowered employees. As part of the newer expectations for research administrators, many faculty and researchers expect and need guidance on proposal writing. Victoria Molfese, Karen Karp, and Linda Siegel summarize the key points that research administrators can share with proposal writers, department reviewers, and new faculty about the peer review process. This short article captures the major reasons why most proposals fail-poor project design and poor politics. In a similar vein, Ann Kratz describes a new approach to enable faculty to be more success ful in planning for their research and other roles. Sparked by decreasing attendance at new faculty orientation, an Indiana university planning committee searched the literature, investigated information gaps, and repackaged materials. A tool to hook faculty, a Professional Development Planner covers knowledge and skill issues, institutional support services, internal priorities, and action planning strategies. The article discusses how the tool evolved.

The book review of Innovation U: New University Roles in a Knowledge Economy. (2002) by Louis G. Tornatzky, Paul G. Waugaman, and Denis G. Gray continues the theme of change and highlights what made 12 innovators succeed. Michael Owen captures the essence of this book in the review, Creating Enabling Environments.

With this issue we list new members of the journal team and recognize the contributions to this issue from out-going members Pamela Brown and Diane Watson.