Volume LVI, Number 2
The Needs And Challenges of the Research Administrator Workforce
Jennifer E. Woodward, PhD
University of Pittsburgh
Evan Roberts
Society of Research Administrators International
Abstract
Research administrators are integral to the research enterprise, yet the profession remains hindered by the absence of standardized job titles, responsibilities, and compensation frameworks. These inconsistencies drive turnover, restrict career progression, and weaken institutional efficiency. The findings and recommendations from a three-phase National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded GRANTED conference are presented in this study. To begin, regional focus groups with research administration leaders and human resources professionals identified themes related to organizational structures and workforce practices. These insights informed a national survey that produced 2,441 responses across diverse institution types from individuals with more than 1,200 distinct job titles. A final workshop of senior practitioners reviewed the survey results and provided recommendations. Findings indicate that workload, limited advancement opportunities, and inadequate compensation are leading causes of attrition, while misaligned human resources policies, decentralized authority, and regional pay variation prevent standardization. Participants stressed the need for consistent job descriptions, defined competencies, and equitable pay frameworks. The results underscore the importance of developing a national job classification system for research administrators to stabilize the profession and strengthen institutional research infrastructure.
Keywords: National job classification system; research administrators; workforce needs and challenges; and standardized job titles, roles, and salary structures
Introduction
Research administrators play a critical role in supporting the research enterprise across higher education institutions, academic medical centers, hospitals, and industry. They manage complex administrative, compliance, and fiscal responsibilities that enable faculty to focus on scientific discovery and advancing society. While the profession has grown into a specialized and increasingly essential workforce, the field continues to lack a standardized national framework for job classifications, titles, and responsibilities. Previous research has found that retention in research administration was steady in the presence of strong supervisor support and a positive culture, however, administrators that feel undervalued or lack career advancement opportunities are more likely to seek alternative employment (Welch & Brantmeier, 2021). The current lack of standardized roles and advancement structures in research administration runs counter to established principles of effective work design, which link job clarity and development to higher retention and motivation (Parker, Morgeson, & Johns, 2017).
Little standardization and consistency heighten concerns, given that researchers already spend approximately 44% of their time performing administrative tasks rather than conducting research (Schneider, 2018). Research administrators are instrumental in alleviating this burden and allowing research teams to focus on their core mission: advancing science and improving the human condition. Despite their importance, research administrator practitioners continue to face significant challenges in professional advancement, recognition, and workforce stability (Zink, Hughes, & Vanderford, 2022).
These challenges have significant consequences for workforce development and institutional performance. A general lack of consistency persists in titles, core functions, and salaries, not only between institutions but also within the same organization. This inconsistency contributes to high turnover rates as research administrators frequently move between positions or institutions seeking better pay, professional development, or career advancement, resulting in financial loss and reduced productivity for the units and institutions they leave behind (Zink et al., 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated gaps, with the shift to remote and hybrid work environments increasing turnover and further straining the already overburdened research enterprise (Reardon, 2021). These persistent barriers not only limit individual career growth but also threaten the sustainability of the profession by weakening the talent pipeline. Early-career administrators, in particular, are at greater risk of attrition due to a lack of mentorship, advancement pathways, and institutional support (Smith, 2017).
Emerging and minority-serving institutions face even greater difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified research administrators due to limited resources and their inability to offer competitive salaries and benefits. This situation creates a vicious cycle where the lack of administrative support hinders faculty's ability to secure extramural funding, essential for sustaining and growing research programs, particularly in STEM fields (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2024). Without adequate administrative support, faculty members are often overwhelmed by the complexities of the application submission and award processes. Furthermore, evolving and expanding federal regulations, especially in STEM research areas, add layers of complexity to research administration. Research administrators must continually update their knowledge and skills to ensure compliance, adding to their workload and stress levels.
This paper presents the outcomes of a National Science Foundation (NSF) conference grant supported through the NSF’s Growing Research Access for Nationally Transformative Economic Development (GRANTED) initiative. GRANTED was established to strengthen the research enterprise by enhancing administrative and support capacity. This project contributed to that mission by engaging a broad spectrum of research administrators and institutions to identify solutions for stabilizing and advancing the profession. Through a three-phase process, this project gathered data and developed recommendations for supporting the eventual creation of a standardized national job classification system.
Methods
This one-year, three-phase conference project had three overarching objectives to be completed between January 1, 2024, and December 31, 2024. Phase 1 involved conducting virtual focus groups with research administration leadership from a broad distribution of institutions nationwide to gain diverse perspectives on the challenges and needs surrounding research infrastructure, particularly emphasizing the research administrator workforce. Five 90-minute Zoom focus group sessions were held with research administration leaders and human resources (HR) professionals from various institutions. Participants were offered a $200 honorarium for their involvement. The virtual focus group sessions, facilitated by a professional focus group facilitator from Leadership Strategies, took place on February 28 in the Midwest, March 5 in the South, March 12 in the Northeast, March 13 in the West, and March 14 in mixed regions. Fifty-three professionals participated, sharing their perspectives on research infrastructure challenges and needs. The data were transcribed and aggregated by Datagain Services into broad themes to maintain anonymity and were used to develop the comprehensive survey for Phase 2.
In Phase 2, a project-specific 38-question anonymous survey was developed by the project team in collaboration with the project steering committee and Datagain Services. Questions 35 and 36 in the survey were adapted with permission from the CUPA-HR Employee Retention Survey (Bischel, Tubbs, and Schneider, 2023). Distribution lists included the Society of Research Administrators International (SRAI) membership, National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA) membership, NSF GRANTED listserv, Research Administration Listserv (RESADM-L), focus group participants, and the Midwest Research and Graduate Administrators Forum. The survey remained open for 30 days with one reminder. No compensation was provided for participation. The survey was distributed nationally by SurveyMonkey on behalf of the project team by SRAI, gathering data from June 17 to July 17, 2024, on the roles, responsibilities, and satisfaction of research administrators, and the challenges faced by institutions conducting research. Responses were received from 2,441 participants across various academic settings, including R1 institutions (both with and without medical schools), undergraduate institutions (PUIs), and R2 institutions. The large dataset collected and analyzed by Datagain Services is publicly available through the project website at https://nationalrajobclass.srainternational.org/ or directly on figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28607711.v1.
Phase 3 involved a half-day in-person workshop, the "Research Administrators Classification Action Workshop," held during the SRAI Annual Meeting in Chicago on October 27, 2024. This workshop focused on discussing the Phase 2 survey results and developing key recommendations for creating a national job classification system and organizational models to support research administrators. The session included 26 research administrator leaders and decision makers from various academic institutions nationwide. The agenda included a concise presentation of recent survey results, questions-and-answers, and four breakout sessions to gather participant feedback on immediate actions, best practices, and future strategic recommendations for a national job classification system. Attendees also had the opportunity to participate in the broader SRAI Annual Meeting, which offered additional training sessions, networking opportunities, and insights into best practices in research administration, enhancing the overall impact of the workshop.
Results
Respondent Demographics
The survey, conducted between June 17 and July 17, 2024, received responses from 2,441 research administrators. The regional distribution of respondents was mostly balanced, with 30% from the South, 29% from the Northeast, 21% from the West, and 20% from the Midwest (See Figure A1 in the Appendix). The majority of respondents were from R1 institutions with a medical school (47%), followed by R1 institutions without a medical school (21%), Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions (PUI, 12%), R2 institutions without a medical school (8%), and R2 institutions with a medical school (6%). Public institutions represented 67% of the respondents, while private institutions accounted for 28%, land grant institutions 16%, minority-serving institutions 9%, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) 1% (Figure A2).
On average, respondents had 14 years of experience in research administration, with an average of 5.1 years in their current position. The standard deviation for overall experience was 9.52 years, indicating a broad range of career stages among respondents. Most respondents had approximately 5 and 23 years of experience (mean ± 1 SD), suggesting that the sample is broadly representative of mid-career to senior-level research administrators rather than entry-level staff (Figure A3). The majority of respondents worked in Pre-award and Post-award areas, with titles varying based on the type of institution and the experience level of the respondents. Survey respondents identified more than 1,200 unique job titles. Additionally, 86% resided in the same state as their institution, and 55% were in a hybrid work model arrangement (Figure A1).
The majority of institutions were classified as public (67%), and more than half (53%) reported research expenditures of less than $500 million in FY23, with an average expenditure of $407 million. For R1 institutions with medical schools, 20.3% had expenditures over $1 billion. Notably, 21% of the respondents were unsure of their institution's research expenditures (Figure A2).
Key Research Administrator Challenges
The survey highlights several key challenges related to organizational structure faced by research administrators. Inequities in resources and staff allocations between Pre-award and Post-award teams were identified as the most prominent challenge. Other significant challenges included meeting compliance responsibilities, overlapping and confusion between Pre-award and Post-award duties, and insufficient integration between these units (data not shown).
Most respondents observed some level of standardization in research administrator positions, although about 20% perceived these roles as lacking consistency. Respondents were divided regarding the alignment between job roles and titles. Just over a third of respondents (35%) felt there was a good match, while a quarter (24%) believed there was rarely or never a match between job roles and titles. Concerns about salaries and pay scales also emerged, with inequalities between similar roles being a significant issue. Nearly half of the respondents indicated that titles and salaries do not adequately reflect the risk, stress, responsibility, or expertise associated with their roles. In the South, 21.8% reported no standardization in titles for research administration positions, whereas 30.6% in the Midwest and 30.8% in the West stated that job descriptions were mostly standardized. Among central office respondents, 20.2% felt that research administration roles and responsibilities were mostly standardized. Similarly, in the West, 21.6% noted that pay scales, pay categories, and job classifications for research administration were largely standardized (Figure A4).
Human Resources (HR) department policies and the inability to accommodate the nuances of research administrator roles were identified in 65% of the respondents as the most significant barrier to achieving consistency in titles, roles, and pay scales.
Respondents identified the following survey choices as significant barriers to standardization: 1) organizational structure enables differences in pay for similar roles or titles (58%); 2) lack of consistent leadership to create equitable job classification systems (51%); 3) departments want autonomy to decide job descriptions and salaries (51%); and 4) state institution designation requirements (34%). Those with over 11 years of experience in research administration, as well as 43% of respondents in the West, viewed HR policies as a significant challenge that prevents the organization from creating consistency around job titles, roles, and pay scales. Respondents from R1 institutions with medical schools (30.9%) cited departmental autonomy in deciding job descriptions and salaries as a major obstacle to consistency. Meanwhile, 29.3% of those with 0-5 years of experience in research administration were unsure if this posed a challenge (Figure A5).
Recruiting Research Administrator Challenges
Recruiting research administrators was identified as particularly challenging by 70% of respondents due to a limited pool of high-quality candidates, and by 62% due to lower salaries compared to other opportunities. A majority of respondents from non-HBCU minority-serving institutions (73.8%), public institutions (67.5%), and land-grant institutions (64.6%) indicated that their institutions offer lower salaries than other opportunities. Similarly, 67.6% of respondents from the South reported facing this same challenge. Respondents involved in department administration noted that position titles are confusing and do not adequately describe the roles (34.1%), which presents a challenge for recruiting. Additionally, 29% of respondents from the South stated that not offering remote work opportunities is a major challenge in recruiting. Likewise, R2 institutions with medical schools (35.6%), without medical schools (28.6%), and PUIs (40.6%) indicated that the lack of remote work opportunities is a significant challenge in recruiting. Those with 0-5 years of experience as research administrators indicated at a rate of 27% that not offering remote work opportunities is a challenge in recruiting (Figure A6).
Retaining Research Administrator Challenges
The most prominent challenges identified for retaining research administrators were workload/stress and the search for higher pay/increased salary. Limited career advancement opportunities were the third most frequently cited challenge, with each of the top three challenges selected by approximately half or more of respondents (59%, 52%, and 48%, respectively; Figure A7). One of the most prominent reasons influencing employees’ decisions to seek other employment was for higher pay/increased salary. Sixty-five percent of the respondents from the Midwest indicated that workload and stress were significantly larger challenges in retaining research administrators, while 51.7% of those from the South indicated that competitive salaries and benefits offered by other institutions were a big challenge. Furthermore, 51.5% from the South and 52.3% from the West indicated that limited career advancement opportunities within the organization were a challenge for retaining research administrators. Similarly, 64.5% from PUIs, and those with 8-15 years of experience in their current position (56.9% for 8-10 years and 56.6% for 11-15 years of experience in their current position) indicated that limited career advancement opportunities within the organization is a challenge for retaining research administrators.
For R1 institutions with medical schools, 44.4% of respondents identified competition with other internal departments as a major challenge in retaining research administrators. Similarly, 42.3% of land grant institutions indicated that this competition posed a challenge. Likewise, 40.5% of respondents with 26-30 years of experience in research administration also noted the difficulty of retaining staff due to internal departmental competition.
Among respondents with 0-1 years of experience, 23.1% indicated that lack of recognition or appreciation is a challenge for retaining research administrators, and 23.1% noted limited training and development opportunities as a challenge. Additionally, 23.9% of research administrators with 0-5 years of experience in the field indicated that the lack of management or leadership support is a major challenge for retaining research administrators.
Factors for Seeking Other Employment Opportunities
When asked about the likelihood of seeking other employment opportunities in the next 12 months, 36% of respondents indicated they would likely do so. Among those with 0-5 years of experience, 80.2% cited a pay or salary increase as the primary reason for seeking new employment, while 75.5% of respondents with 6-10 years of experience echoed this sentiment. Respondents with 0-15 years of experience in research administration (35.9% with 0-5 years, 34% with 6-10 years, and 38% with 11-15 years) identified promotion and increased responsibility as motivation for exploring other opportunities. Additionally, 38.9% of respondents with 0-5 years of experience valued the opportunity to work remotely, a factor also influencing 36.2% of respondents from the South.
Those with 6-10 years of experience in research administration (32%) and individuals with 4-5 years in their current position (36%) expressed a desire for new challenges as a reason to seek other employment. A more flexible work schedule motivated various groups, including 22.1% of individuals with 0-1 year in their current role, respondents from R2 institutions with (30.2%) and without (27.5%) medical schools, PUIs (27.2%), and 27.5% from minority-serving institutions, excluding HBCUs. Furthermore, 22.6% of respondents from hospitals or medical centers cited better benefits as a reason to pursue other employment, as did 18.1% of those with 0-5 years in research administration (Figure A8).
Strategies for Addressing Research Administrator Challenges
The top five strategies recommended by respondents as ways to address these challenges were competitive salaries (18%), training and development (17%), retaining existing staff (15%), recruiting more staff (14%) and clear and consistent job descriptions (14%). Respondents also suggested that enhanced cross-departmental collaboration and communication would in addition to the above improve the structure of research administration responsibilities within organizations (data not shown).
Top Workshop Themes – Key Issues and Considerations
Based on participant feedback during the workshop breakout groups at the SRAI Conference, 10 themes emerged providing a comprehensive overview of the key issues and considerations for improving research administration across institutions. Firstly, there was a consensus on the need to standardize job titles and responsibilities to ensure clarity and consistency within the field. Participants recognized essential skills and competencies for research administrators, such as communication, diplomacy, conflict resolution, regulatory and policy knowledge, financial expertise, IT proficiency, and adaptability. Aligning pay scales with job responsibilities and experience levels was identified as crucial, with recommendations for conducting job parity reviews, updating job descriptions, and considering cost-of-living factors.
The advantages and disadvantages of centralized versus decentralized research administration structures were acknowledged, with centralized models offering greater expertise and standardization, and decentralized models providing flexibility and closer alignment with departmental needs. The potential benefits of shared services and collaboration between institutions were noted, including handling complex issues, exchanging expertise, fostering mentorship programs, and leveraging resources.
Clear career pathways and professional development opportunities were emphasized to support career progression, alongside the identification of role-specific skills and competencies. Effective cost-recovery strategies, such as maximizing indirect cost recovery (IDC), were deemed essential for funding the expansion and sustainability of research administration infrastructures. Adjustments to salary ranges based on regional cost of living, while maintaining consistent role expectations, were recommended. Specific infrastructure needs for pre-award, post-award, and compliance roles were outlined, advocating for the implementation of electronic Research Administration (eRA) software systems, fiscal management systems, and compliance monitoring tools. Finally, steps toward developing a national job classification system for research administrators were considered, focusing on standardizing job titles and descriptions, defining core competencies, and establishing transparent and equitable pay scales.
Discussion
The comprehensive three-phase NSF GRANTED conference project identified significant challenges and critical needs within the research administrator workforce across diverse U.S. academic institutions, including inconsistent job titles, roles, and salary structures. These inconsistencies hinder recruitment, retention, and overall workforce effectiveness. The data also revealed that workload and stress, non-competitive salaries, and limited career advancement opportunities are primary factors influencing turnover, particularly at public, minority-serving, and emerging institutions.
Addressing these challenges requires a strategic approach. The development of a national job classification system for research administrators is crucial in achieving this goal. This system will provide consistent job titles, roles, responsibilities, and salary structures, enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of research administration nationwide. By standardizing these elements, institutions will be better equipped to recruit and retain qualified research administrators, ultimately improving the overall research productivity and success of faculty and institutions.
While this project engaged a broad and diverse cross-section of the profession, several limitations remain. Participation was voluntary, introducing the possibility of self-selection bias. Smaller or under-resourced institutions may be underrepresented, and the short timeline limited longitudinal follow-up. These constraints highlight the need for sustained inclusive research to build on the foundation provided by this work.
To address the challenges of the research administrator workforce, academic institutions need to invest in strengthening their research administration infrastructure. Possible strategies include using indirect cost recoveries from grants to fund research administrative positions, creating comprehensive career paths, and offering competitive salaries and professional development opportunities to attract and retain talent. By pursuing these initiatives, institutions can ensure that faculty members receive the necessary administrative support to focus on their research, leading to greater innovation and success in securing funding.
The creation and implementation of a National Job Classification System would enhance the research enterprise by addressing key operational challenges. By establishing well-defined career paths and competitive compensation frameworks, the system supports recruiting and retaining skilled research administrators, thereby reducing turnover, and bolstering institutional stability. This structural clarity allows faculty researchers to concentrate more on their research endeavors while research administrators efficiently manage administrative tasks. Furthermore, this standardization fosters a positive and fair workplace culture, which is crucial for sustaining a motivated and effective research administration workforce.
With a National Job Classification System, institutions can achieve greater research efficiency and productivity, contributing to a more robust and innovative research environment. All stakeholders, including academic institutions, research administrators, and funding agencies, are encouraged to support the development and implementation of a national job classification system for research administrators and to use the data obtained from the survey and themes from the workshop to address the research administrator infrastructure and workforce at their institutions.
Authors' Note
Funding for this project was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) GRANTED Award 2324360. The NSF GRANTED Program “focuses on addressing systemic barriers within the nation's research enterprise by improving research support and service capacity.”
Jennifer E. Woodward, PhD
Vice Chancellor for Sponsored Programs and Research Operations
University of Pittsburgh
3420 Forbes Avenue, 300 Murdoch Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
jew7@pitt.edu
Evan Roberts
Executive Director
Society of Research Administrators International
1560 Wilson Blvd, Suite 310
Arlington, VA 22209
eroberts@srainternational.org
Corresponding Author
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer E. Woodward, PhD, Vice Chancellor for Sponsored Programs and Research Operations, University of Pittsburgh, 4320 Forbes Avenue, 317 Murdoch Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA, jew7@pitt.edu.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the project Steering Committee, Jacqueline Bichsel (CUPA-HR), Paul Daniels (National Labor Exchange), Allison Forbes (Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness, CREC), Amber Gaither (National Labor Exchange), Marchon Jackson (Howard University), Dara Little (Northern Illinois University), and Martin Romitti (CREC) for their expertise and input throughout the project. A special thank you to the Society of Research Administrators International staff, Debbie Appler and Ellen Quinn, for their administrative and operational support, and to Eric Larson and Waldo Avila from the University of Pittsburgh for their pre-award expertise and fiscal management of this project, respectively.
References
Bichsel, J., Fuesting, M., Tubbs, D., & Schneider, J. (2023, September). The CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey. CUPA-HR. https://www.cupahr.org/surveys/research-briefs/higher-ed-employee-retention-survey-findings-september-2023/
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2024). A plan to promote defense research at minority-serving institutions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27838
Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F. P., & Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000106
Reardon, S. (2021). The impact of COVID on research administration. Research Management Review, 34(2), 78-95.
Schneider, B. (2018). Faculty time on administrative tasks. Journal of Higher Education Administration, 45(3), 123-140.
Smith, J. A. (2017). Retention and turnover of early career research administrators: Preliminary results [NCURA Research Report]. National Council of University Research Administrators. Retrieved from https://www.ncura.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AYHzHt9zsN4%3D&portalid=0
Welch, L., & Brantmeier, N. K. (2021). Examining employee retention and motivation trends in research administration. Journal of Research Administration, 52(2), 70–86. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ132546
Zink, H. R., Hughes, D., & Vanderford, N. L. (2022). Reconfiguring the research administration workforce: A qualitative study explaining the increasingly diverse professional roles in research administration. Journal of Research Administration, 53(2), 119–140. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1362090.pdf
Appendix
Figures