1 / 31

FDP 2012 Faculty Workload Survey Progress Report on Findings

FDP 2012 Faculty Workload Survey Progress Report on Findings. Pamela A. Webb Associate VP for Research Administration (excerpted from slides provided by Sandra Schneider, Vice Chair, FDP and Faculty Burden Survey Principal Investigator) Presented to the Council of Research Associate Deans

chung
Download Presentation

FDP 2012 Faculty Workload Survey Progress Report on Findings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FDP 2012 Faculty Workload SurveyProgress Report on Findings Pamela A. Webb Associate VP for Research Administration (excerpted from slides provided by Sandra Schneider, Vice Chair, FDP and Faculty Burden Survey Principal Investigator) Presented to the Council of Research Associate Deans April 25, 2013

  2. Reminder: 2012 FDP Faculty Workload Survey • Purposes: • Assess changes or additions to administrative burdens since Faculty Workload Survey #1 in 2005 (e.g., ARRA) • Obtain more detailed information about specific burdens (e.g., IRB, IACUC) • Goals: • To increase the likelihood of efficient and effective demonstration projects • Provide information to FDP and federal agencies to facilitate targeted reduction of administrative burden

  3. FWS II Research Team • Principal Investigator: • Sandra Schneider (USF), • FDP Vice Chair • Project Manager: • David Wright, • FDP Executive Director • Data Collection support: • Survey Sciences Group, LLC • Scott Crawford, • SSG Executive Director • Brian Hempton, • SSG Study Director • Research Assistant: • Nate Decker, • Univ. of South Florida • Randy Brutkiewicz, Indiana University • Laura Lang, Florida State University • Kiri Ness, St. Jude Research Hospital • Sara Rockwell, Yale University • Joshua Rosenbloom, University of Kansas • Sandra Schneider (Chair), University of South Florida • Kelly Shaver, College of Charleston • Jennifer Wisdom, Columbia University FWS II Task Force

  4. FDP Faculty Workload Survey Facts IRB Approval: September 2011 (U of South Florida) Conducted: January 23, 2012- March 22, 2012 Prelim Analysis: August 2012 Full Report: Spring 2013 2005 Participants = 6,295 2012 Participants = 13,453 (26% response rate) 12,816 with complete data From 99 FDP Institutions Q1-Q4 Basic Work Background Q5-Q6 Breakdown of Work Time Q7-Q9 Federally-funded Research Overview Q10-13 Administrative Workload on Federally-funded Projects Q14-16 Demographic Information Q17 Perspectives on Funded Research and Administrative Workload Eligible to participate if: PI of a federally funded project in FY10-11 At an FDP institution

  5. Workload on Federally-funded Projects 42% of PI’s federally-funded research time is spent completing pre- and post-award requirements.

  6. Question: On average, which types of administrative responsibilities are taking away the most time from active research?

  7. Proposal and Report Preparation takes up almost one quarter of the average PI’s federal research time.

  8. Question: What are the administrative issues that are most burdensome about proposal preparation? • Constantly changing requirements, formats and content • Wasted time filling out numerous documents when the vast majority of proposals will not be funded • Detailed budgets despite low likelihood of funding • Different requirements from different agencies; different forms (CVs, budgets, etc.) • Increasing requirements with decreasing funding rates • Emphasis within proposal on procedure and data that are not directly relevant to the research

  9. Question: What are the administrative issues that are most burdensome about report preparation? • Constantly changing requirements, formats, and content • Routine, redundant, detailed interim reports that no one reads • Different requirements from different agencies; complex forms • Requirements are too frequent and overly detailed; tedious • Ambiguities in requirements; poor fit of forms to actual research • Online submission is “user unfriendly”

  10. Pre-Award and Post-Award Administration takes up almost one fifth of the average PI’s federal research time.

  11. Question: What are the most common pre-award and post-award administrative responsibilities?

  12. Question: What are the most intensivepre-award and post-award administrative responsibilities?

  13. Over 80% of PIs report having time taken away from research in order to deal with Finances, Personnel and Effort Reporting. 1=None – 5=Very much

  14. Over 50% of those who experience the responsibilities report that IRB, Finances, Personnel, Clinical Trials, and Subcontracts require substantial time away from research. 1=None – 5=Very much

  15. Although not as prevalent, almost 80% of those who have IACUC responsibilities report that it takes substantial time away from research. 1=None – 5=Very much

  16. Highest burden items • Preparing IACUC protocols for initial review 3.62 • Managing personnel 3.55 • Preparing IRB protocols and informed consent 3.50 for initial review • Annual IACUC reviews and 3-year reviews 3.38 • Overseeing subaward technical progress 3.31 • Completing revisions requested by IACUC reviewers 3.29 • Overseeing subaward financial progress/invoices 3.21 • Comparing budget-to-actual expenditures 3.09 • Completing revisions requested by IRB reviewers 3.04 • Waiting for feedback from review 3.00

  17. Question: Does workload vary by principal field?

  18. FWS Breakdown of Participants by Principal Field

  19. Question: Does workload vary by agency?

  20. Question: What factors are associated with higher and lower levels of administrative responsibilities? • Consider: • Academic Rank • Administrative Role • Type of Project • Amount of Funding • Principal Field of Research • Funding Agency • Demographics

  21. Question: What factors are associated with higher and lower levels of administrative responsibilities? • In no area is time taken away from research less than 35% and often it is over 50%. • Factors associated with greater federal administrative responsibility include: • Non-professor positions • Administrative appointments • Service, Training, Curriculum and other non-research-focused projects • Higher combined direct costs; more projects • Smaller, non-doctoral or specific focus institutions • Smaller funding agencies • Females; Hispanic/Latino or African American

  22. Question: What factors are associated with higher and lower levels of administrative responsibilities? • Differences in post-award administrative responsibilities, and to a lesser degree, report preparation account for most differences in administrative responsibilities. • Proposal preparation tends to reliably account for about 15% of federal research time • Pre-award administration hovers around 6%.

  23. Question: To what extent do PIs feel they could benefit from additional administrative assistance?

  24. PIs estimate they could reduce their time away from research by approximately 25-40% with additional assistance • Generally, the greater the time away from research, the larger the estimated potential reduction. • Of greatest benefit to those using Human Subjects or having General Compliance responsibilities 25-40%

  25. More complete results at: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/fdp/PGA_081164 Scroll down to second to last hyperlink on this page to view the 92 slides that make up the full presentation

More Related