The role of "development" in a research administration office.
This paper will essentially examine the demands for U.S. institutions of higher education to develop externally sponsored programs as an answer to the increasing challenges placed before them and the methods these institutions are using to do so. An institution of higher education will be defined in this paper as an organization that provides associates, bachelors, masters, and/or doctorate prepared degrees to qualified individuals.
State and private institutions of higher learning will be examined. Although there are some philosophical and funding differences between state and private institutions of higher education, they are still faced with many similar problems in creating innovative services and programs for society. Both state and private institutions also solicit and receive funding from common sources, including: (a) federal and state agencies, (b) private and corporate foundations, and (c) industries. Since both state and private institutions of higher education are facing these similar challenges, both will be examined and included in the definition of an "institution of higher education".
As society has become more complex in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, there have been increasing demands for institutions of higher education to offer new services, and become more adaptable to the world's changing needs. With the evolution towards globalization, higher education institutions are challenged to transform their way of doing business while at the same time facing many roadblocks.
The United States (U.S.) has changed rapidly since the end of World War II, from 1945 to 2005. Institutions of higher education have played a highly significant role in not only preparing the U.S. population for the technological changes taking place, but also bringing many innovative technologies and policy changes to U.S. society in those 60 years. Consequently, state and federal legislators, who have been pivotal in funding many of the innovative research and service programs to institutions of higher education during that time demand that the education sector continue to develop and create opportunities for the ever-changing U.S. and international society--be it innovative curriculums, community service, or new technologies. The challenge of doing so is only compounded by the limitations of resources--the most limiting being lack of funding.
The downturn in the U.S. economy has effected all institutions of higher education institutions. State institution's budgets are most directly affected through reductions in their government appropriated dollars. However, all institutions of higher education have had to respond to the limitation on dollars available from external funding sources, and the burden of increasing external funding is often placed on the sponsored programs offices. To do so, though, requires an expansion of the role of such an office. If we expand our view of Sponsored Programs Offices as facilitators to also include development, we see great possibilities in providing the needed resources to assist institutions of higher education in meeting some of the challenges they face today.
Traditionally, the role of development is defined as assisting institutions of higher education in developing strategies and creating relationships specifically tied to fundraising activities with the target audience being individuals or corporations providing gifts to such institutions. As we discuss development here, our definition differs from the traditional definition of development, above, to include state or federal government or corporate entities providing funds through contracts or grants.
The duties and tasks of Sponsored Programs Offices are varied. Every research office is organized differently according to each organization's structure and mission. However, the goal of all Sponsored Programs Offices should be to facilitate the procurement of funding for sponsored programs, and the administration of the programs brought to fruition. Sponsored Programs Offices are the institution's rules enforcer and liaison with funding agencies and organizations for institutions of higher education. They play a pivotal role in interpreting and following federal and state guidelines for funding programs, and assuring compliance with institutional, state, and federal regulations, as applicable. Sponsored Programs Office personnel are also strategically positioned to advocate for faculty and institutional specializations while also identifying funding opportunities.
Society looks to institutions of higher education to resolve the academic and research needs of the world. Today's challenges in meeting those needs include providing access to an ever-changing population and expanding upon and imparting the knowledge and technology required for a global economy. To answer these challenges while facing budget cuts further complicates the issue. Many institutions are focusing on increasing external funding, either through gifts, and/or grants and contracts. The sponsored programs office cannot increase the number and dollar of grants and contracts simply by requesting our faculty and staff increase their submissions. Instead, we must familiarize ourselves with the strengths and weaknesses of our institutions; develop collaborations and programs focused on those strengths, and strategies for procuring funding to support such programs. As we will see, through use of Illinois State University as a case study, a wide variety of activities may be introduced to achieve these objectives. A planning tool will also be offered to assist in determining the level and degree to which various institutions of higher education might be able to accommodate these activities.
Challenges for Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century
The downturn in the U.S. economy in 2000 had immediate and far reaching repercussions for higher education funding. For example, higher education competes for state resources with programs such as Medicaid, elementary and secondary education, transportation and the department of corrections, to name a few. Because institutions of higher education have the capacity to raise funds through tuition, legislators often feel that education organizations have more flexibility to survive than traditional state agencies that are solely reliant on general appropriated funding. For this reason, in many states, higher education was targeted with a disproportionate share of the budget cuts.
As an example, funding for public institutions in the State of Illinois has been declining since 2002. Hebel (2004) reports that funding for Illinois public institutions declined 1.7% in 2004 and states in the Great Lakes area continue to lag behind the rest of the nation in rebounding from the economic recession in the early 2000s. Additionally, even states whose economies have begun rebounding have not returned to pre-2000 funding levels for institutions of higher education.
While these funding cuts have certainly made it difficult to manage the daily operations of an institution of higher education, the greater challenge is in providing the new programs and services our society and governments require with these limited resources.
The primary challenge to higher education institutions today is in providing access and personalized service to a larger, further diversified, population of students. In 2009, it is projected that 3.2 million students will graduate from high school, the largest class in the country's history. The largest class to graduate previously was in 1977. In 1977, 51% of the graduates went on to pursue a postsecondary education, in 2005, 68% of high school graduates enroll in college (Selingo, 2005).
This large enrollment of high school graduates is compounded by nontraditional and adult students returning to university or community college campuses, taking college courses at off-site locations, enrolling in classes offered through their employer, or enrolling on-line to receive an additional degree or more training. By the end of 2005, 1.2 million college students will be enrolled in college fully online, up from 438,000 in 2002. By 2007, that number is expected to jump to 1.7 million (Selingo, 2005).
Tuition costs at institutions of higher education continue to rise, principally because of decreasing support from state governments. This is causing an increasing amount of college costs borne by students and families. Access and affordability of higher education is being threatened. High academic achievers among low-income students have limited opportunities to attend college. They are no more likely to attend college than the lowest performing wealthy students. It is becoming that universities are attracting principally higher and middle income students and less lower-income students.
A recent survey developed by Chicago Public Schools illuminates the problem of low income, minority students going to college (Cholo, 2005). About a third of Chicago Public Schools high school graduates who planned to attend college did not enroll in the fall semester. There were 18,144 students that graduated from Chicago Public Schools in 2004. The percentage of 8,741 Black students that attended college was 46%, Latino students numbered 6,198 with 38% attending, White students numbered 2,206 with 60.2% attending, and 999 Asian students graduated with 76% attending college.
Universities, since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, have become increasingly more committed to assisting first generation, low-income and underrepresented minority students attend college and earn undergraduate and graduate degrees. Reduced funding as proposed by the current 110th Congress (2006) and the Bush administration will make it more of a challenge for institutions of higher education meet their goals of assisting students from these target populations attends college, as evidenced in the statistics presented on the Chicago Public Schools, above.
The Bush Administration in 2006 is proposing to eliminate 43 programs in the U.S. Department of Education which provides $4.1 billion to schools and universities. Programs that are proposed to be eliminated for FY 07 are in elementary and secondary education, improving high school achievement, elimination of programs that traditionally assist low income, minority and first generation college students. It is also proposed that eight programs in higher education be eliminated in the Office of Postsecondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education and freezes the rest of the programs at the 2006 enacted level. Pell Grant awards for students remain frozen at $4,050, which[ has remained constant since 2003, while the average tuition and fees at a four year public college have risen to $1,393 (Spratt, 2006).
A second challenge brought before institutions of higher education through state and federal governments is the emphasis on collaboration between institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, K-12 school districts, state agencies, faith based organizations and municipalities. This movement to encourage collaboration became institutionalized by many federal agencies in the 1990s.
For example, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the late 1990s developed the slogan of the three C's to promote various organizations to receive funding for Economic Development Empowerment and Enterprise Zones. The three C's are Cooperation, Collaboration, and Consensus. This program encouraged universities, rural development nonprofit organizations, municipalities, businesses and school districts to be involved in a very complicated and time consuming planning activities to compete to become one of the successful recipients.
Many more federal agencies now have made collaboration a focus, if not a requirement, for funding certain programs. Funding agencies as disparate as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Education (DOE), and Department of Housing and Urban Development, among others, all encourage collaboration in their Request for Proposals (RFPs) for competitive grant programs.
State governments are following the federal government in calling for more collaboration for institutions of higher education with other organizations. The Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) administers the Higher Education Cooperation Act Grants. The purpose of this particular grant program is "to support programs of inter-institutional cooperation in higher education that promote the efficient use of educational services, the development of innovative educational concepts that effectively deliver educational programs and involvement with the local community(Illinois Board of Higher Education, 2005, p. 1)." Eligible applicants are described in the RFP as including at least two public or private higher education institutions. Not-for-profit corporations organized to administer programs in interinstitutional cooperation of higher education and Illinois public schools also may participate in these programs (Illinois Board of Higher Education, 2005).
The increasing demands for institutions of higher education to develop collaborations or interact more with other organizations for competitive and non-competitive sources of funding means that there will be increased administrative costs. Many institutions of higher education are suspicious that the focus on collaborative programs is a strategy by federal, state and private funding agencies to shift the cost of administration from the government sector to that of higher education. The increasing complexity of developing partners and collaborative programs has led to institutions of higher education being forced to spend more time in planning and relationship development with other organizations. This means that institutions of higher education bear more of the cost in developing unfunded projects than in the past.
Institutions of higher education are facing the problems of (a) declining state revenues for higher education; (b) increasing student numbers, both traditional and untraditional and; (c) federal and state government and private funding agencies demand for more collaborative programs that makes it more costly and complicated for developing projects than in the past. Higher education institutions are in need of resources to manage these problems, or challenges. Within a higher education institution, who is responsible for acquiring these resources? More and more often, upper administration is turning to Sponsored Program Offices--charging those offices with increasing externally funded grants and contracts.
Programs Developed in Sponsored Programs Offices
Sponsored Programs Offices have traditionally played the role of facilitator for faculty and staff during the grant application preparation and submission process, and throughout the life of a funded project. The functions of the Sponsored Programs Office are typically categorized as pre-award, post-award, and compliance. Each Sponsored Programs Office carries out these activities to a different degree, with the resources and personnel available for these functions dependent upon the institution's level of funding, organizational reporting lines, and outlook on research. The role of facilitator requires review and interpretation of institutional, state, and federal guidelines and regulations, as applicable. It also includes acting as liaison between faculty/ staff and funding agencies, or vendors and subcontractors. Often the sponsored programs offices have oversight or administrative duties associated with the Institutional Review Board and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, overseeing the use of human subjects and animals for research purposes. All of these traditional activities focus on facilitating the funding process for an existing, previously developed, idea or program.
However, Sponsored Programs Office personnel, or those with research administration experience, are maybe best strategically positioned to advocate innovative programs while also identifying potential funding sources. They are familiar with the strengths of the institution, the fundability quotient for certain programs, and potential funding sources. They are best situated to develop ideas and programs, and bring them to fruition.
To this end, Sponsored Programs offices across the country have been developing new ways to assist their institutions in meeting these very demands for new programs and services. The emerging trends, revealed in an informal survey, are to create satellite offices or new positions within the existing office to offer various support services required in the development process.
Research and Economic Development offices have been developed by institutions of higher learning to assist communities and regions. Some functions of these offices are (a) developing research parks for specific industries; (b) creating collaborative partnerships between communities, regions and institutions of higher education to attract industry funding; (c) developing business incubators for small businesses both on campus and in the community; (d) providing grant writing and professional expertise to attract federal and state funding for economic development projects for the community; (e) developing centers specifically that will attract industry, examples of these being in the areas of biotechnology, nanotechnology and health and; (f) providing expertise in technology transfer and intellectual property primarily for faculty and staff in transferring basic research to the marketplace.
A recent survey by Wake Forest University found that economic development programs for universities and the communities they serve is becoming increasingly important. Wake Forest University surveyed one senior research administrator from each of 250 research universities. Their survey showed that over 50% of the universities play a large role in economic development and technology transfer, with 41% playing a slight role. The survey also revealed that larger universities with more than 10,000 undergraduates and research-extensive universities are more likely to be more assertive in developing economic development programs than institutions with less than 10,000 undergraduates or research intensive universities (Wake Forest University, 2005).
Typically, all interactions between state and federal government and institutions of higher education were coordinated through an Office of Government Relations, or a governmental relations position reporting directly to the institution's president. Some university Sponsored Programs Offices have developed within their auspices Federal Relations Offices to deal with the increasing complexity of finding funding and maintaining contact with elected officials. The rise in congressionally-authorized grants or earmarks for organizations has made it increasingly more important for institutions of higher education to remain in contact with their elected representatives. Direct funding from state and federal agencies, especially through contracts and noncompetitive grants also makes it necessary for institutions of higher learning to develop contacts and relationships with department officials and program officers.
Some functions for Federal Relations Offices are (a) selecting and advancing a short list of proposals from the university seeking congressionally authorized grants; (b) writing congressional briefings and presentations of programs; (c) identifying expert witnesses selected from faculty and staff to make presentations to congressional committees; (d) developing strong relationships with elected officials, legislative staff and agencies to advance the organization's mission; (e) writing policy or briefing papers on federal policies and regulations and; (f) organizing events in Washington DC and on the home campus for legislators and their staff.
Institutions of higher education are developing a more aggressive strategy in pursuing earmarked projects for funding. Although a federal relations office might coordinate activities related to the pursuit of federal earmark dollars, many universities are hiring lobbyists to handle those activities. Those lobbyists, then, work through an office or position created to facilitate governmental interactions related to sponsored programs, or at least with the knowledge of, and in conjunction with, the sponsored programs office. The total number of earmarks or 'pork barrel spending" dollars for charities and government entities has increased six fold since 1994. (Special Report, 2005)
Another type of support offered through sponsored programs offices or through a satellite office provides research consulting services. These offices or positions generally assist in the development of proposals, search for interdisciplinary opportunities, build teams (both external to the institution and internal), and identify funding opportunities. They may also delve into the grant-writing through development of boilerplate language for use in proposals and editing proposals.
Some of the schools providing these innovative development services are the University of North Carolina, Louisiana State University, University of Kentucky, Western Michigan University, University of Washington and Ball State University. Each offers additional services beyond the norm for those faculty and staff interested in promoting sponsored programs and ideas and each are taking a proactive role in their university's growth.
Illinois State University as a Case Study
Several years ago, just prior to Illinois' budget problems, upper administration charged our Sponsored Programs office with the task of increasing external dollars. To do so required a review of the university's strengths and weaknesses, and development of a strategy.
Illinois State University is a predominantly undergraduate university located in Normal, Illinois. Fiscal Year (FY) 04 data indicates 18,500 undergraduate students and 2,553 graduate students were enrolled and forty three doctoral degrees were conferred. Colleges at Illinois State University are Arts and Sciences, Applied Science and Technology, Business, Fine Arts, Nursing and Education.
The total Illinois State University budget in FY 2004 came from the following sources: (a) State of Illinois appropriations, 29.6%; (b) tuition and fees, 31.7%; (c) auxiliary enterprises, 21.9%; (d) government grants and contracts, 8.6%; (e) grants, contracts, gifts, 1.0% and; (f) other sources, 7.2%. Grants and contracts make up about 10 percent of the total funding allocations. However, these funds have been the focus over the past few years as they show more potential for growth than state appropriations, tuition and fees and auxiliaries.
Funding levels for externally sponsored projects at Illinois State University for the years 1999-2003 are shown in Figure 1.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Illinois State University external funding for FY 04 was $20.5 million with 319 total grant awards. External funding has increased by 19% in the last five years. Generally, increases have been in Federal funding, while there were decreases in state and corporate sources between 2002 and 2003.
Funding from these sources increased in 2004, but not to the same levels as 2001. The State of Illinois has significantly decreased funding to public institutions of higher education both in appropriated funding and competitive grant programs since 2002 because of the economic recession which began in 2001. Although there has been some economic resurgence since 2003 in the Illinois economy, appropriated funds for institutions of higher education have not reached the same levels as 2001. However, Illinois State University has received more federal pass-through funding distributed by the State of Illinois for primarily education programs since 2001.
Federal funding has continued to increase for Illinois State University. Primarily, this is because of a more concentrated approach by selected faculty to write competitive grants for federal programs and an organized attempt to procure more federal legislative earmarks from the Illinois Congressional Delegation. Pursuing federal funding opportunities has assisted Illinois State University to continue to grow despite shortfalls from the state and corporate sectors.
Illinois State University was awarded over three hundred grants and contracts last year. Very few of these grants or contracts exceed $100,000. Therefore, the Sponsored Programs Office expends a great deal of time administering a lot of small projects. The Research and Sponsored Programs Office for Illinois State University is organized as illustrated in Figure 2.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
There are nine persons employed by the Research and Sponsored Programs Office at Illinois State University. The Director of Research and Sponsored Programs oversees all functions and persons in the office. The Director reports to the Associate Vice President for Research. Four persons are in the pre and post award department and they are responsible for management of data, mailing and copying of proposals, review of submissions, and negotiation of grant agreements and contracts. The compliance section, which includes Internal Review Board and Internal Animal Care and Use Committee, employs three full-time persons and one part-time veterinarian.
One of the assistant directors is filling a position created a few years ago as the Sponsored Programs Office was charged with increasing external funding. Our Associate Vice President of Research realized the only way to do that was to have a staff person devoted to team-building, increasing multi-disciplinary partnerships, and making contacts at the state level for contract work, and the federal level for earmarked dollars. This assistant director position is really a hybrid position providing some of the services traditionally housed within a Sponsored Programs Office, but adding components you might ordinarily find within governmental relations and development units. The first few months in this position were spent interviewing faculty and staff, analyzing the institution's strengths, and beginning to set up teams.
At about that same time, Illinois State University also hired a lobbying firm and the new assistant director began developing a notebook of brief proposals that Illinois State University would present to the congressional delegation. The work has progressed now to their assisting Illinois State University in setting up meetings with program officers in Chicago, Springfield or Washington DC, developing partnerships with outside organizations, writing support letters and proposals or planning documents as needed, and assisting teams in planning. One time-consuming aspect of this job has been in developing relationships with other organizations. Illinois State University has worked on developing partnerships with associations, school districts, community colleges, businesses and other universities as a means of qualifying for some of those federal programs specifically requiring collaborative activity.
In adding services to the Sponsored Programs office, we found a necessity to refocus or change the duties of the other staff. Some of the new activities, programs, and services we have instituted in the last couple of years are collaborations among the several functions of the office; others are solely the responsibility of the pre-and post-award areas, others the new assistant director manages. All, though, promote externally funded programs, motivating faculty and bringing a "development" focus to the office.
We offer various trainings at both the department and college levels--arranging a special meeting time or joining a regularly scheduled departmental meeting. These trainings include a combined "finding funding/submission process" presentation, hands-on funding searches within a computer lab using various searchable databases, and special sessions presented by visiting program officers. Illinois State University hosted a regional NEH meeting on campus last year and brought several program officers from the State of Illinois on campus. This fall, we will be hosting an NSF day with program officers. This will be open to any institution in the state of Illinois.
The Sponsored Programs Office has devised several incentives programs in our attempts to encourage grant-writing efforts. Several universities are offering similar incentives. A travel award program was instituted to provide funds for travel to meet with program officers, and/or cooperating institutions if directly related to grant-writing. The grant-writing initiative award is a new competitive program designed to provide dollars as an incentive to write grants as well. A recognition reception is held each spring to acknowledge all faculty/staff who submitted grants in the previous year--funded or not.
Some of the development activities aimed at the pre-submission stage are meetings with external funding agencies with the goal being to build relationships for future projects, and further into the lifecycle of a project, facilitating the application process. There have been appointments with agency and program officers in Chicago, Springfield, and Washington, DC, about specific grant opportunities and research interests.
Another activity we engage in is to arrange "brown bag" lunches with faculty to discuss common research interests and potential funding sources. These are promoted as multi-disciplinary efforts. Topics covered in the past include bioterrorism, geriatrics, teacher recruitment, and nursing. We also will "shop" projects to various funding agencies--researching hot topics, and then promoting those programs within the university that meet each funding agency's priorities. And lastly, our assistant director in the development area will act as an ad hoc team member--writing abstract proposals, taking minutes at meetings and disseminating, and setting goals for the team. If external partners are identified, he arranges meetings with those individuals and coordinates the effort.
The objective for all of these activities is to develop: (a) new ideas, (b) programs from existing ideas, and (c) relationships with collaborators and funding agencies to promote the programs. The ultimate aim is to increase external funding providing resources that will allow the university to meet the needs of the student population and promote the transfer of services and technology to the general public.
The rapid changes in society both in U.S. and internationally will cause institutions of higher education to have to become adaptable and flexible for change. Sponsored Programs Offices will become the drivers for change and will need to assist administration at institutions of higher education to assist in meeting with the community and developing strategies for finding the funding to provide services for projects, programs or centers.
Strategic or long-term planning is a complicated process that needs the input of many participants. The questionnaire developed does not intend to take the place of these needed planning tools. Instead, the purpose of this suggested planning tool is to assist Research and Sponsored Programs by providing an abbreviated approach to begin assessing their ability to develop ways to respond to opportunities and demands either internally (institution of higher education) or externally (state, region or community) in providing additional services or demands.
Questions that can be discussed in the planning session are:
1. What development activities are currently in place by Research and Sponsored Programs Offices?
2. Can your office expand these services using current personnel?
3. What new projects do you anticipate the administration of your institution will ask Research and Sponsored Programs to create or develop in the next five years?
4. Are there demands by state government, regional entities or the community for your institution to meet needs for employment, training or creating centers in the next five years? If so, what will be the demands on Research and Sponsored Programs to provide services for the creation and administration of these collaborative efforts?
5. Will Research and Sponsored Programs need to have additional funding or personnel to create or administer these new programs?
6. Will administration in your organization be supportive of providing the additional resources for development?
The planning session that discusses these issues may come up with ideas on how to provide more outreach to faculty and staff in writing competitive grant proposals without having to add more personnel for the office. External demands may be identified as the need to work more closely with the community to develop business incubators, creation of jobs and research parks. These activities will mean that there will be a need for more additional personnel and perhaps the creation of new departments in the Research and Sponsored Programs Office. Challenges for higher education will continue to grow in the twenty-first century and it will be essential for Sponsored Programs Offices to work with their internal and external clients for developing innovative programs and strategies.
The development and ideas for this paper derived from a presentation to the Midwest Regional SRA/NCURA Conference in May 2005 and a concept paper presented at the 2005 SRA International Symposium. In the original presentation, we discussed how Illinois State University has developed some unique strategies through the Research and Sponsored Programs Office in assisting faculty and staff procuring external funding for their programs and projects. The concept paper presented at the 2005 SRA International Symposium examines other universities and the field of higher education response to the ever changing environment of decreasing state appropriations, increasing and diversified student populations (traditional and nontraditional), and demands by state, federal and private funding agencies to develop collaborative relationships with other organizations in order to promote the transfer of services and technology to the general public.
Cholo, A. B. (2005). City's College-Bound Rate a Third Less than Thought, Chicago Tribune, Page A1 & A9.
Hebel, S. (2004). State Spending on Higher Education up Slightly, a Reversal from Previous Year. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume 51, Issue 17, Page A27.
Illinois Board of Higher Education, (2005). Fiscal Year 2006 Higher Education Cooperation Act (HECA) Requests for Proposals (RFP) for New and Renewal Applications.
Scott, J & Leonhardt, D. (2005). Class in America: Shadowy Lines that Still Divide. New York Time, p. A1 & A10..
Selingo, J. (June 17, 2005). To Recruit Today's Students, College Must be Agile Marketers, Officials are Told. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume 51, Issue 41, Page A21.
Special Report (2005). Manna or Pork: Members of Congress earmarked more than $2-billion for charities this year, a Chronicle study finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume 27, Number 19, A6.
Spratt, J. M. Jr. (February 6, 2006). Bush 2007 Budget: Record Deficits and Wrong Choices. House Budget Committee, Democratic Caucus, 1-31. Wake Forest University (2005). A Report on Research Activities at U.S. Research Universities, 1-8.
Mr. Ed Mason, MA
Assistant Director, Research and Sponsored Programs
Illinois State University
Campus Box 3040
Normal, IL 61790-3040
Ms. Linda Learned, MBA
Contract Coordinator, Office of Sponsored Programs and Research Administration
University of Illinois
1901 South First Street, Suite A, MC685
Champaign, IL 61820
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Mason, Ed; Learned, Linda|
|Publication:||Journal of Research Administration|
|Article Type:||Author abstract|
|Date:||May 1, 2006|
|Previous Article:||Putting the "ethics" back into research ethics: a process for ethical reflection for human research protection.|
|Next Article:||Research management in Southern African higher learning institutions.|