Credibility in Research Development Facilitation: Looking Good in Many Hats! Christine Black Dawn McArthur Pradip Pramanik University of Michigan University of BC NC State University
Objectives Understand credibility Learn about credibility busters Identify ways to build and regain credibility
Activities Presentations Role-play Share stories Find solutions Have fun
The Credibility Challenge Dawn McArthur, PhD Head, Research & Technology Development Office Child & Family Research Institute University of British Columbia / BC Children s Hospital
Why credibility? In response to common questions How can I get people to take me seriously? How can I convince them I m here to help? How do I ensure that I m heard? What can I do when a researcher? What can I do if I don t know? What if I m wrong about?
What does credibility mean? How trustworthy, reliable and competent we are considered to be The level of confidence others have in us to do our job well and with integrity
Credibility matters because It must be earned It is not permanent It can be the best tool for or worst barrier to success
Credibility is a challenge because We often work with people who don t know us well We work in a variable and constantly changing landscape We have little control over many factors that affect our work
Key factors Organization Reputation Resources Attitude toward employee independence Decision-making support Internal policies and procedures Individual Position title Formal training Experience Age Gender Culture / community Worldview Values
experience policies approach ego power gender assumptions opinions logistics morals time content reputation boss procedures tools stress money culture honesty communication
Credibility Busters in Research Facilitation Pradip Pramanik, MSc Assistant Director Proposal Development Unit Office of Research, Innovation, and Economic Development NC State University (919) 513-0170
Credibility: A Complex Web
Credibility & Research Facilitation Credibility Effective Research Facilitation Time
Credibility Busters Not accepting personal responsibility Not telling the truth Withholding or not sharing accurate information Making decisions without input from the team
Credibility Busters Failing to keep up with your field of expertise Failing to do what you said you would do Trying to do everything control freak! Dominate team dynamics, rather than facilitate team dynamics
Credibility Busters Ridicule suggestions from others Play the blame game! Rigid-rule enforcer, rather than being flexible and adaptable Not maintaining a balance between accomplishing tasks and constructive relationships
Credibility Busters All-knowing attitude, making grandiose claims about self Being defensive to constructive feedback Participate in rumors and gossip Saying one thing and doing another
Gaining (or Re-Gaining) Credibility in Research Development Christine Black, MLS Office of Research (Research Development Support) University of Michigan Medical School
So you made a mistake? That s life we all do don t wallow in self pity or incriminations just move on Never send an email or make a phone call too soon reflect after a good long think and a good sleep & respond thoughtfully Don t blame others for your missteps Rejoin the effort as if nothing had happened
Now rejoin the team and salvage your credibility
Do Some Detective Work before the 1 st Meeting Become familiar with similar work, e.g., Successful projects to the same sponsor, in the same field, using the same mechanism, similar initiatives Similar protocol/process Offer to obtain samples/surveys if necessary
Come to the Meeting with Blueprints Be Prepared Prepare an outline Keep it simple Note the basic structure Note the wow factors Note the pitfalls in advance
Assume the Role of Task Leader Take charge of calendar and assignments Remind players of their roles Provide motivation if needed Take the first stab, e.g., write a section, assemble a committee, find an article, research a relationship between agency & university
Coach if Necessary Teams that win have values, not necessarily the best talent Motivation should be a better tomorrow not beating the competition Success comes from contributions, not winning create a vision
Add Some Optimism Assess likelihood of success Remind group of assets Identify additional assets if possible Are there ways to offset shortcomings? Can you appropriately add humor to the conversation?
Remain Humble & Respectful May I suggest If you would like me to This is for your consideration If this is most convenient for the group I would be more than happy to At your convenience
Bring in Reinforcements Assess any missing links Suggest consultants a statistician, data analyst, subject matter specialist OR Dr. Certainty May be most useful for internal reviews
Try to Respond as Promptly as Possible Acknowledge mail messages may have to answer Qs later May deliver shorter or partial version before a more complete draft is possible Try to work from a calendar for group to include all tasks including your turn-around time
Try to Avoid the Dirty Work Do what ever needs to be done BUT See if there is someone else to schedule meetings, create email groups, develop tables, order catering, assemble proposal, take minutes, etc.
A group is meeting for the first time to discuss development of a large proposal The Project University A is assembling a Team to apply for major funding for a new Center for Fighting Children s Obesity The Players Professor A PI Senior faculty member Professor B Co-PI Junior faculty member Professor C Co-investigator Midcareer faculty member; respected; has own agenda Facilitator 1 Senior RD professional Helping to develop the proposal Facilitator 2 Junior RD professional Observing the meeting
Scenario 1 The PI has invited a newly-hired assistant professor to join as co-pi, because Teams that include junior co-pis will have a significant competitive edge One co-investigator demands a large budget item a fully equipped gym to study cardiovascular output in exercise that is tangential to the Center's purpose and will cost $250,000
Scenario 2 Prof B leaves the meeting feeling very despondent knows s/he has been invited to participate as a token and that the PI does not know (or apparently care ) about what s/he brings to the team At same time, Prof B s first major grant has been rejected and s/he is discouraged by the reviews Prof B wonders if s/he has made the right career choice in the current competitive research environment Prof B has an appointment with Facilitator 2 to discuss the next steps