Blog Viewer

Volume LVII, Number 2 |

Melanie Bauer
Division of Research and Economic Development, Nova Southeastern University

Joshua Roney
Office of Research, University of Central Florida

Rachel Goff-Albritton
Division of Research, Florida State University

Abstract

As institutions seek to expand research capacity, the role of research administrators (RAs) is evolving beyond compliance toward strategic research support. This mixed-methods study explores the potential for integrating research development (RD) approaches into RA roles, including at non-R1 institutions with limited RD staff. Using the frameworks of extra-role behavior (ERB) and the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, focus group and survey data from RA professionals were examined in terms of their interests, motivations, and institutional factors influencing RD engagement. Findings show strong interest in RD activities among RA staff, especially for event coordination, faculty mentoring, workshop and resource development, and institutional research planning. Motivations included professional growth, collaboration, and broader institutional impact. Reported barriers involved time constraints, staffing, conflicting expectations, and lack of leadership support, while facilitators included training, autonomy, recognition, and a supportive organizational culture. Research administrators are well-positioned to leverage the RD knowledgebase, but successful integration depends on leadership engagement and broader institutional stakeholder buy-in. Harnessing RD practices and tools within the RA workforce offers a practical, capacity-sensitive model for strengthening faculty support and research competitiveness, particularly in institutions without dedicated RD units.

Keywords: Research administration, research development, extra-role behavior, job demands-resources, motivation and burnout, barriers and facilitators

Introduction

Research grants are vital for supporting institutional infrastructure and faculty scholarship, yet most federal research funding goes to a small group of the largest “R1” research universities, leaving faculty at non-R1s with fewer resources (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2020; Matthews, 2012; Stoop et al., 2023; U.S. Department of Education, 2023). Faculty at non-R1s often lack robust research infrastructure due to funding inequities, dedicated time to conduct their research given heavy teaching responsibilities, and access to research development (RD) staff with research offices composed primarily of research administrators (RAs; Matthews, 2012; Preuss et al., 2020; Solem & Foote, 2004; Walden & Bryan, 2010). While RA staff are commonly employed at higher education institutions to ensure grant compliance, RD positions remain scarce—over half are at R1s, two-thirds are in just 14 states, and only large institutions typically have multiple RD staff members (Preuss et al., 2020; Schiller & LeMire, 2023). RA professionals have an opportunity to fill some of the missing links between compliance-focused administration and the strategic, faculty-centered support that enhances research competitiveness, positioning them as bridges between the operational and developmental aspects of the research enterprise, especially in non-R1 environments.

As colleges and universities across the country explore ways to increase their competitiveness for external grant funding, the roles of RA professionals continue to evolve, with these staff serving as faculty allies and helping to increase research productivity (Garrido et al., 2019; Vander Kloet & Campisi, 2023). As stated in one study of the RA profession and workforce, “Research development is critical to elevate the prestige of the research enterprise, and it is quickly becoming an essential role” (Zink et al., 2022, p. 136). While the RA professional is typically tasked with the administrative and compliance aspects of sponsored funding—ensuring adherence to institutional, sponsor, and regulatory requirements—RD involves strategic activities aimed to help faculty and research teams become better grant writers as well as guiding institutions to enhance and communicate their research capabilities and achievements (National Council of University Research Administrators, n.d.; National Organization of Research Development Professionals, n.d.). RD work often involves assisting in funding opportunity matches, improving proposal narratives, facilitating collaboration and teamwork, and tracking grant metrics, among a plethora of other capacity building activities (Eck & Roney, 2023; Preuss et al., 2018). However, professionals with formal RD titles do not “own” the market on research capacity building efforts; many RA staff report that a key motivation for remaining in their field is the desire to contribute to research that benefits society at large, and they appreciate being part of growing their institution’s research enterprise (Poli et al., 2023).

The work of RA professionals in the RD space is particularly advantageous to faculty at non-R1 institutions. This is because those faculty have more limited access to research equipment, mentors, and startup funds than their R1 counterparts, driving the need for additional support in their grantsmanship and related endeavors (Walden & Bryan, 2010). This additional support may come in the form of connecting early-career faculty to senior investigators with grant track records, advising those faculty on grant opportunities targeted at non-R1 institutions, and helping faculty develop short- and long-term research and grant writing plans through trainings and one-on-one consultations. This type of additional support may be engaged in, on occasion, by some RA professionals, but a concerted focus on these types of activities enters RA professionals into a more RD-oriented domain of work.

While faculty needs and supportive services/programs related to grant seeking, publishing, and other aspects of research productivity have been reviewed by many (Bland & Ruffin, 1992; Goff-Albritton et al., 2022; Ransdell et al., 2021; Rhaiem, 2017), underexplored is the topic of who helps (and can help) faculty socialize into their new academic environments, especially in the case of how RA professionals may serve in this role. Importantly, this does not necessarily mean more work for the RA professional. It can mean modifications, enhancements, or replacements of current work and should certainly involve judicious examination of current work processes and well-considered changes. The related topic of how to integrate RD activities into the existing RA workflow is beyond the scope of the current project but is discussed in part in the concluding sections of this paper. This study focuses on some of the precursors to RA engagement in RD, including their interests and perceptions related to adopting new RD-focused activities.

Purpose and Significance of the Study

Motivated by a desire to enhance support for new faculty in a variety of institutional settings, ideas and input were sought from RA professionals regarding opportunities for increasing RD-related skills, resources, and activities in their work repertoire. RA professionals are well situated to apply RD approaches, combining them with their existing expertise and skills to better support faculty and advance institutional research goals. The purpose of this study was to understand how RA staff view the potential for engaging in RD-oriented activities. Specifically, RA professionals’ interests in incorporating new RD-oriented activities were explored as well as their needs related to enabling this implementation. 

This investigation of higher education staff and infrastructure explores the potential for synergy between RA and RD, highlighting how RA professionals—found across all types of U.S. higher education institutions—can adopt RD strategies to strengthen faculty support, expand research capacity, and advance their own careers. As both fields evolve to meet growing institutional research goals, integrating RD approaches into RA roles can improve proposal competitiveness, foster collaboration, and enhance early-career faculty success (Eck, 2023; Zink et al., 2022). Drawing on findings from engagement with RA staff, this article shares RA perspectives on and interests in RD, providing recommendations to support broader adoption of RD strategies across the research enterprise.

Theoretical Lenses

Two theoretical frames were used from the applied psychology and organizational studies literatures for the present study. These lenses helped to draw out the affordances and impacts (both positive and negative) for RA professionals interested in extending their work into the RD space. First, the concept of extra-role behavior (ERB), sometimes known as discretionary behavior or organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), was considered (Van Dyne et al., 1995). This type of behavior, such as when an RA staff member offers RD support beyond their expected job duties, can come at a personal cost like becoming overworked and may not be consistently rewarded (Ryan & Dunn-Jensen, 2016; Stoner et al., 2011). However, ERB can have benefits for both the individual and organization. Individual benefits can include building professional relationships, having a voice in decision making, reward and recognition, and general job satisfaction (Podsakoff et al., 2009; Stoner et al., 2011; Van Dyne et al., 1995). The organization also benefits in terms of its effectiveness and outcomes, both from performance of the individual and across individuals performing in aggregate (Podsakoff et al., 2009; Walz & Niehoff, 2000). Taken together, ERB encourages staff to be prudent when considering which new job duties to take on, weighing the potential pros and cons for oneself as well as one’s organization and stakeholders.

The second framework used to interpret the project data was the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, which considers the potential to assuage stress resulting from overextending oneself at work through supportive resources (Demerouti et al., 2001; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Some interesting aspects of the JD-R model relate to how to protect staff against burnout. Social, work, organizational, and developmental resources available to a staff member can buffer against the negative impacts of increasing job demands, such as can occur when an RA staff member changes the services and support they offer to their campus community (Schaufeli, 2017). For example, if an RA staff member has easy access to RD tools, training, and other resources to assist in their development in a new professional domain, the JD-R model suggests they will be less likely to experience job-related stress. The model also considers the personal resources of a staff member, such as their internally driven dedication, professional growth, and pride, which can all help guard against burnout.

There is a connection between these two lenses in the literature. When job resources are abundant (as characterized by the JD-R model), there is an increase in the likelihood of ERB (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). They also both capture overlapping concepts in their examinations of workplace behavior and outcomes, such as both considering recognition and reward as well as the potential for overload in one’s work. Both the empirical and conceptual connection between these two lenses reinforce the importance of studying them in tandem in the present study. See Figure 1 for a summary of key workplace factors (positive and negative) in each framework that are relevant for exploring expansion of the RA professional role.

Figure 1. Dual Theoretical Lenses for Explaining Work Behavior and Outcomes

Methods

Data in the current mixed-methods study were collected in 2024 through focus groups and surveys engaging RA staff members. This study is part of a larger grant-funded project (National Science Foundation Award No. 2324520) aimed at uncovering the types of support being provided to early-career faculty researchers by various institutional members. This overarching work is considering opportunities to share favored RD resources with those who do not hold formal RD position titles, including those working in research administration, those who mentor early-career faculty (such as senior faculty and administrators), and others charged with creating and growing their institution’s research environment. The methods of participant recruitment, data collection, and data analysis of the current study are discussed next.

Sample and Recruitment

Participants were recruited through two professional society member email lists, both focused on the RA profession: the National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA) and the Florida Research Administration Conference (FRAC). NCURA is a national organization, while FRAC is statewide. See Table 1 for a listing of each organizational population along with the resulting focus group and survey samples for the current study. The total study sample was 299 (61 focus group participants, 238 survey respondents).

Table 1. Organizational Populations and Participant Samples for the Present Study

Note: “MSI” refers to Minority-Serving Institution, “PUI” to Primarily Undergraduate Institution, and “ERI” to Emerging Research Institution (National Science Foundation, n.d.; U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, 2024). Demographic questions were optional, so some percentages do not sum to 100%.

Study Design and Data Collection

A multi-step method similar to an exploratory sequential mixed methods design was employed (Creswell, 2014). Using guidance from this method for each population, data collection began with an initial exploratory phase to gather qualitative information from a small sample (in our case, through focus groups) and was followed by a more quantitative phase with a larger sample (through surveys, which included both closed- and open-ended questions). The benefits of this two-step design are as follows. Data from the qualitative phase, which included audiovisual recordings and transcripts, were preliminarily reviewed to inform survey question development. This provided an opportunity to follow up on key findings and underexplored topics from the focus groups as well as to quantify some of the more descriptive information learned through informal discussions. As an example, focus groups identified various needs related to incorporating a new RD activity into their work, which were transcribed and thematically categorized. The follow-up survey then asked respondents to select which needs they thought were most important by selecting up to three listed options. This approach avoided assumptions and efficiently quantified the highest needs.

The project team served in the roles of focus group facilitators and survey administrators when engaging the NCURA and FRAC participants. For the focus groups, participants were recruited via email to attend a 60- to 90-minute session, which featured several prompts to stimulate discussion. Breakout groups were created to facilitate smaller group discussions. For the surveys, each contained approximately 10 core questions and additional demographic questions, with the survey estimated to take 10-15 minutes to complete. Table 3 shows example questions from the focus groups and surveys.

Table 3. Example Focus Group and Survey Questions

Data Analysis

This mixed-methods analysis combined both qualitative and quantitative data sources for a deeper understanding of the motivations, challenges, and institutional contexts that shape RA engagement in RD. Qualitative data from focus groups and open-ended survey responses were analyzed to uncover patterns and themes, while quantitative survey data provided a broader view of trends and preferences across the participant population as well as key demographic information. The pairing of these methods strengthened the reliability and richness of the findings, ensuring both breadth and depth in the interpretation of participant perspectives and experiences. The analytical procedures for each dataset are outlined below.

Qualitative Data

The qualitative project data was analyzed using a team-based approach repeated across the different sets of participants (NCURA and FRAC) and datasets (focus group transcripts and qualitative survey responses). The unit of analysis for coding was the participant’s full response to each focus group or survey question. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed by Otter.ai Pro’s automatic transcription application. Survey responses were downloaded into a spreadsheet file for analysis. Aiming to maintain credibility in the analysis, the team completed iterative rounds of coding, searching for confirming and disconfirming evidence in the data (Patton, 2015; Saldaña, 2021).

The analytical process began with the development of a codebook, starting with creation of a start list of codes created by one member of the team based on the study’s focus group and survey questions. These questions were informed by the current project’s goals of understanding RA professionals’ current work tasks and environments as well as their interests in implementing new RD-type activities. Next, as part of the open coding stage, the same team member read through the collected transcripts and open-ended survey data, adding or expanding on the listed codes until no new themes emerged, indicating saturation. Explanatory phrases were also added to the code list at this stage to further characterize each code. Codes from the open coding stage were then synthesized into a final master code list by merging and simplifying where appropriate. 

The master code list was then distributed to the other two team members, and each of the three members systematically read through a subset of the study’s qualitative data. While reading, the members added additional explanatory information along with exemplary quotes from the datasets. This helped expand the details, meanings, and contexts related to the topics of interest. The concluding products were three highly enriched code lists with descriptive excerpts and summary statements for each code generated independently by each team member. The project team member originally responsible for creating the code list then synthesized the collected information across the members’ enriched code lists. Higher-level emergent themes across code lists were identified using a constant comparative approach, grouping codes into broader categories to support interpretation of findings (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Representative quotes were maintained for each code to ensure data richness and maintain the voice of the study participants in the analysis. The emergent findings were discussed in a meeting by the three team members, revisiting the original data as needed, until consensus was reached.

Quantitative Data

Quantitative and closed-ended survey responses in the current dataset were collected from both survey and focus groups and included a combination of Likert-style, other multiple choice, and numerical text inputs. In the case of the surveyed groups, there were closed-ended questions such as rating a list of RD activities in relation to respondents’ level of interest as well as several demographic questions and questions about respondents’ institutional characteristics. In the case of focus group participants, the only quantitative questions they responded to were these latter demographic and institutional questions, which were completed through a focus group sign-up form.

Quantitative data were downloaded into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and summarized using built-in count, percentage, and averaging formulas. Filtering and Pivot tables enabled organizing of the data for various types of analyses, such as by RA position type (e.g., pre-award vs. post-award) and position location (e.g., central office vs. department/college).

Findings and Discussion

The current project explored the challenges, benefits, and facilitators for research administration (RA) professionals interested in going “above and beyond” their typical support activities. This extension of their work was investigated in the domain of research development (RD). 

The two theoretical lenses used in the current study help to organize the major findings into two thematic areas. The first area draws primarily on the concept of extra-role behavior (ERB) in relation to anticipated positive outcomes, recounting the RD activities that were of most interest to RA staff as well as their reasoning and expected benefits related to engaging in these activities. The second area incorporates the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model to group the barriers and facilitators that RA staff may encounter when incorporating new RD activities. Barriers and facilitators are grouped into the categories of job demands, job resources, and personal resources. Where relevant, the lenses cross-pollinate, such as in the case of both frameworks considering the risks of overloading oneself at work and subsequent impacts on employee well-being.

Research Administrator Preferences and Motivations in the Research Development Domain

The findings in this section describe the specific RD tasks that appealed to RA staff and the underlying motivations behind their interest, including a desire for greater impact, collaboration, and professional growth. These motivations connect directly to the literature on the potential benefits to individuals who engage in ERB (Podsakoff et al., 2009; Van Dyne et al., 1995). These findings, describing what draws research administrators to engage in RD activities, offer insight into why institutions might consider expanding faculty support through existing RA roles.

Interests in Research Development Activities

RA professionals were shown a list of 22 RD-oriented activities and asked which they would be interested in incorporating into their work. (This listing was derived from professional websites and academic publications defining RD.) Table 4 includes data from RA staff who completed this question on the NCURA-distributed survey and who report that a majority (>50%) of their work activities are in the pre-award space (n=88). This section, and others in this paper limited to pre-award perspectives, includes only responses from pre-award RA staff as they are the ones most directly involved in both early one-on-one support for faculty grant seekers and in capacity-building efforts such as trainings and resource development to improve proposal quality, presenting an opportune overlap and synergy between pre-award RA and many RD activities. Indications of their RD interests are captured in the table for those who were “Somewhat interested” or “Very interested” in each listed RD activity as well as all those interested at either level (“Total interest”). Importantly, survey respondents were also permitted to alternatively indicate they had no interest in the activity, were not familiar with the activity, or were already engaged in the activity. 

Table 4. Research Development Activity Preferences

Over half of the RA respondent sample was at least somewhat interested in 13 of the 22 RD activities. Considering the top five most favored RD activities, three related to organizing offerings, including mentoring programs, customized support services, and program officer visits. Another of the top activities involved developing training workshops and related resources with 47 respondents (53% of the sample) indicating they were very interested in this activity. The remaining choice in the top five was a bigger picture item, which included involvement with institutional-level research capacity building and strategic planning.

Every one of the 22 RD activities included in the survey attracted at least moderate interest from a substantial share of respondents (respondents could alternatively indicate “Not interested” or “Already do” in relation to each activity, and these responses were omitted in the current analysis). Even the two least favored activities—“Find and disseminate funding opportunities” and “Edit proposals and provide strategic feedback (e.g., logic, merit, fit)”—still drew interest from more than 30% of pre-award RA respondents.

Next, in consideration that RA responsibilities and interests may be based on location within the institution, the dataset was divided into those who work in a central research office (n=58) and those who work at the department or college level (n=30; see Table 5). The central office RA staff were most interested (in terms of total interest) in customizing support services based on leadership input, while those located in colleges or departments were most interested in maintaining a library of successful proposals. Toward the top of the list for both groups was developing training workshops and other resources for faculty, which also held the position of greatest interest (most answering “Very interested”) for both groups. Finally, the central office staff were more interested in developing faculty mentoring programs, while college/department staff were more interested in organizing program officer visits.

Table 5. Most Favored Research Development Activities by Work Location

Reasons for Incorporating New Research Development Activities

When looking at the motivations behind why RA staff were interested in the RD activities they selected, they provided several reasons that resonate with the literature on ERB. There were three thematic categories of rationales that emerged in response to an open-ended survey question as well as in focus groups: 1) contributing to meaningful and impactful work, 2) providing opportunity for collaboration and connection, and 3) enabling learning and personal/professional development.

In terms of making RA staff work more meaningful and impactful, these professionals recognized they have valuable information about, for example, the federal funding landscape that they could advise faculty and leadership about. They could also help with proposed project design, both to ensure compliance as well as to position faculty for more efficient and productive research programs. Faculty at various stages can be helped in a developmental sense, with new faculty being guided to seed funding while existing grant awardees may need help with the next step. As one respondent put it: “Some faculty need encouragement to scale up their projects, and others may benefit from securing smaller grants early in their career.” RA staff thought the work would be personally meaningful as well, serving as a source of job satisfaction, an important precedent for engaging in ERB: “I enjoy working with people and connecting them with other people with the same interests.” 

RA staff also saw RD activities as opportunities to collaborate with others, either through connecting with institutional leadership, other institutional staff (e.g., collaborating with library and IT staff to build a successful proposal database), and working more directly in a helping role with faculty. ERB has, as a stated positive, the opportunity for relationship building, as was reflected in the current data. Forming these relationships was seen as a pathway to making an impact. Relationships with various stakeholders enable information sharing and serve as a means to communicate what the staff member and research office can provide in terms of support.

Finally, engaging in new RD activities was seen as an opportunity to grow as a professional. In terms of learning new things, one respondent wrote: “This is an area in the research admin process that I have the least experience in. I would like to explore and learn more about what this process consists of.” One RA staff member’s response cut across all three themes—impact, connection, and development—when explaining their choice of activity: “Because I can see the value in this endeavor, and it would be a new challenge for me that would also connect me more broadly to administrative leadership for the benefit of all faculty.” This connection to administrative leadership could potentially lead to another positive in the ERB framework: accessing power for decision making.

Barriers and Facilitators of New Research Development Activity Engagement

The demands and resources of a job, as well as one’s personal resources, can impact employee well-being and have predictive power for stress, burnout, and overall job performance, according to the JD-R model (Schaufeli, 2017; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). In the next sections the JD-R model is used to organize RA staff responses into job demands that serve as barriers to implementing new RD activities as well as job and personal resources that can serve as facilitators for engaging in this work.

Before proceeding to analyze the qualitative data using the JD-R framework, some of the study’s relevant quantitative survey data are presented; items on the survey cut across the demand and resource domains of the JD-R model and so are presented together. RA staff (through a survey distributed to FRAC members; n=24) were asked to pick one new RD activity they would like to incorporate into their work and then choose the three most important items from a list of 19 that they would need to be successful in implementing the new activity. Their responses are quantified in Table 6 (respondents were also permitted to type a response into an “Other” option, but this option was not used by anyone). As will be reflected in the qualitative data that follow this table, time, staff, and leadership support were viewed as the most important determinants of RA staff engagement in RD by over half of respondents. Also viewed as important, by over a third of respondents, was having collaborators inside one’s institution as well as an overall supportive organizational environment and culture. These factors are considered more fully below.

Table 6. Needs for Implementing a New RD Activity

As a complement to the above quantitative data, RA staff members’ qualitative responses were also analyzed. In fact, in accordance with the exploratory sequential mixed methods design, the following qualitative data preceded the quantitative in terms of data collection and helped to inform survey question development (Creswell, 2014).

Job Demands

The environment and nature of RA work can serve as a detractor or obstacle to engaging in new RD-type activities. When asked about their concerns or considerations when thinking about engaging in new activities, RA staff listed several demands of their job that are featured in the JD-R model. In order to engage in proactive RD activities, they needed time themselves as well as sufficient time with faculty to do so. Last-minute proposal submissions, staff turnover and gaps, and inefficient systems and workflows were mentioned as obstacles to having the needed time. One RA staff member mentioned the desire for “less bureaucratic red tape for issues [that are] reducing our efficiency.” Another recognized that a new activity would come at a cost: “The main factor that would need to be considered is what would I be giving up in its place?...If I were to take something else on, something would need to give.” This type of “work overload” and “bureaucracy,” according to the JD-R model, can be a significant source of challenge. The ERB framework is also aware of the “role overload” potential in extending oneself at work. One staff member was concerned it would be too much to take on in their current office setup: “We would be taking on too much for the two of us to do in a way that would be beneficial. We would need to grow our team to do this well.” 

A further job demand is the potential for “role conflicts,” such as being pulled in different directions or not having a new role be consonant with existing roles. Some mention of this was made by RA staff who responded to survey questions, namely suggesting that some of the RD-type activities offered in the survey were not the purview of RA professionals. One respondent commented simply, “Not RA’s role.” Another mentioned, “We actually have a separate division in our office now that does the research development work.” And one said, “Most of the suggested items are provided by the faculty side, RA does not edit nor coordinate the science collaboration for proposals.” In this way, some RA staff are viewing RD activities as inconsistent with their current duties or as being the job of others at their institution.

Other barriers mentioned by RA staff were office silos, miscommunication, and lack of a clear return on investment, which extend beyond job demands but create challenging working environments and can make it hard to implement new activities.

Job Resources

One’s organizational context and available supports can be a positive influence on motivating new job activities and ensuring they are a positive experience. Across surveys and focus groups, frequently mentioned in terms of job resources was the need for leadership support to engage in a new RD activity. One respondent wrote about their concerns related to administrator support, in which they worried about “being taken seriously and listened to by the department chairs, college deans, or other leaders.” In a similar vein, one respondent mentioned additional needs from administrators: “Buy-in from department chairs/deans and that they make time for the faculty under them to attend.” Related to this topic was the necessity of gaining access to faculty to be able to provide new RD services, which RA staff said could be enabled through partnerships and support from chairs and deans. On this topic a respondent said, “One of my primary concerns with implementing the new activity of developing training materials, toolkits, or workshops for faculty is the potential lack of support from leadership. With solid backing from leadership, securing the necessary resources and prioritizing these initiatives can be more accessible.” “Supervisor support” is a key job resource in the JD-R model mirrored in these responses that is needed to lead to employee engagement and positive outcomes. 

Faculty themselves would also have to buy into the new RD services being offered by RA staff as well as any new resources being offered. One idea for overcoming this would be to engage faculty early on in creating these services/resources: “Involving seasoned faculty in the development and implementation stages can help to build buy-in and reduce resistance,” wrote one survey respondent. Additionally, there was mention that early-career faculty may be more amenable to accessing new RA-provided resources and support than their senior counterparts.

“Co-worker support” is another important job resource in the JD-R model and was mentioned by RA staff in terms of needs, namely having sufficient staffing and support for new initiatives. An idea was provided by one respondent for how to utilize such support: “I need money to hire a post-award specialist to handle the post-award oversight and support so I can redirect more of my time to research development and pre-award support activities.” Other RA staff members mentioned ideas for how they could collaborate with others to expand their capacity and impact in lieu of hiring new staff. One creative solution was as follows: “I could probably lean more on our graduate students...that's a good idea...I'll work on that!”

To be prepared to offer new services and lead new initiatives, RA staff mentioned the need for access to effective tools and professional development opportunities as well as to receive feedback on how they are performing in the RD space. For some respondents this could take the form of mentorship, as one notes, “I appreciate oversight and experience on how best to approach this task.” Others thought about ways to tap their professional network: “Connect with peer institutions who are already doing this to understand their plan(s) of action and lessons learned.” Cited by focus group participants were several additional ways to learn in the new RD space: emailing a listserv for input from colleagues, looking at other institutional websites for what works, attending instructional/informational webinars, and forming a coworker group to brainstorm ideas together. Having access to professional development funds to attend webinars and conferences was also mentioned. These are all important job resources according to the JD-R model, which it refers to as “possibilities for learning and development,” “availability of tools,” and “performance feedback.” 

Respondents shared the need for additional job resources related to having control and decision-making power, as is reflected in the JD-R model’s “job control” and “participation in decision making” factors. As one RA staff member remarked about what could support them to engage in a new RD activity, “More autonomy to make metrics-based decisions on internal institutional policies with approval from appropriate stakeholders.” Another mentioned that when considering adding a new activity they would want to know what “level of autonomy” they would be provided.

What cannot be overlooked is the importance of “recognition” and “fair pay,” as conceptualized in the JD-R model, when staff members exceed expectations and make substantial contributions to their institution. One RA staff member reported, “A new role would probably depend on compensation” and another requested a “pay increase.” Other forms of recognition, such as through annual performance reviews, would likely also be appreciated and necessitate prioritization of new RD activities by one’s supervisor to enable dedication of sufficient time and resources to show evidence of positive impacts.  

Personal Resources

Beyond what one’s institution can provide, RA staff can draw on their own personal resources, according to the JD-R model, to fuel motivation and success. Personal resources are described in the JD-R model as one’s mindset and how someone views themselves in terms of their capabilities (for listings and further descriptions of an array of personal resources see Schaufeli, 2017; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). One such personal resource in the JD-R model is “proactivity,” which was featured by one survey respondent when thinking about what actions they could take to implement a new RD activity: “Reach out to faculty to determine their interest in working on multidisciplinary research.” Another instance of proactivity was captured in this response: “Be an active participant/member at the meetings.”

“Goal directedness” is another JD-R model personal resource, which was well illustrated in one response: “My plan to make progress on developing training materials, toolkits, or workshops for faculty includes creating and deploying a needs assessment survey to understand the specific training needs, preferences, and knowledge gaps. Based on the responses, I would then develop an action plan that defines clear objectives and informs the content development.” In thinking about this resource in another way, one staff member was motivated by alignment of the new activity with higher-level institutional goals: “We align everything we do to our Presidential Initiatives. We literally notate each new activity or expense to one of those pillars.”

Taking on new activities requires a certain level of “optimism,” which is a personal resource in the JD-R model. When thinking about how to incorporate a new RD activity into their current work, one RA staff member said, “Take the initiative to just do it!” This quote also showcases a level of proactivity.

According to JD-R, another important personal resource is “flexibility.” With some optimism in tow, one survey respondent thinking about incorporating a new RD task said, “With all my tasks I don't know, but certainly I'll make space.” With finite time and resources, it is always a challenge to try something new, but optimism and flexibility can breed creativity to make that something new possible.

A final personal resource in the JD-R model, “resilience,” was captured in a focus group participant’s story about becoming an advocate for addressing a problem. She talked about how she worked to “move up the food chain” through institutional leaders up to the Vice President for Research. She thought this type of persistence would be necessary when implementing new RD activities. Another RA staff member, thinking about moving forward with a new RD activity stated, “Activate next steps, hustle, momentum.” This has the tone of someone who is both resilient and proactive.

Conclusion and Recommendations

An integrated research administration (RA) approach—combining RA expertise with research development (RD) strategies—can enhance support for faculty by extending beyond compliance and process into strategic guidance, idea development, and career support. This blended RA strategy could be especially valuable at non-R1 institutions, where RD infrastructure may be limited but faculty could benefit from broader, development-oriented support. In the current study, focus groups and surveys of RA staff from two professional organizations revealed strong interest in RD activities motivated by desires for collaboration, impact, and professional growth, yet constrained by time, staffing, and leadership support. 

Study participants revealed many reciprocal benefits anticipated by these RA staff for moving into the RD space, from feeling a sense of impact and connection with others across campus to progressing in their own growth and development. Many of these benefits are emphasized in the research on extra-role behavior (ERB; Podsakoff et al., 2009; Stoner et al., 2011; Van Dyne et al., 1995), namely the positive outcomes of extending beyond one’s habit boundaries. RA staff may also find that by engaging in RD-type activities they are working earlier and more effectively with faculty, expanding their interactions with faculty to be more varied and enriched on a relationship-building level, and becoming a major connector and research navigator for faculty at their institution (Bauer et al., 2025b).

With many RD activities available and limited time for learning, adoption, and integration, choosing what to add to one’s work plate should be carefully considered. Exploring low-hanging fruit, activities with high potential impact, areas of RD where one has personal interest or expertise, and piloting scaled-back versions of new RD support are all good places to start. Additionally, some RD activities can ultimately save time, such as creating templates and trainings that faculty can access independently. While RD activities may not be a fit for all RA staff or units, those individuals and offices with longer tenures at their institutions, such as the “mature office” described by Cuhel-Schuckers et al. (2016, p. 87), may be prime candidates for RD engagement. Importantly, an already busy schedule should not preclude consideration of ways to augment or change how one conducts their work, especially if there are personal, professional, or organizational drivers for doing so. 

This study highlights a number of resources that can be provided within an organizational context to enable professional growth and expansion of services offered, such as through leadership and supervisor support as well as providing access to (and funds for) training in RD and related resources. More resource ideas for supporting RA professionals’ growth in the RD space may be drawn from the guiding Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009) used in the current study as well as in the recommendations section of the companion report to this article (Bauer et al., 2025a). Some highlights of these recommendations relate to spurring RA staff to be proactive in adopting strategic roles, encouraging RD professionals to share resources and partner with RAs, advocating for institutional leaders to foster collaboration and investment, and prompting faculty to actively engage RA support. The potential for work overload should be acknowledged and a plan made for implementing and sustaining new RD efforts. Special attention should be paid to providing RA staff with a level of autonomy in growing in RD and trying out new programs and services as well as considering what is appropriate in terms of recognition and reward. 

Further investigation into how RAs expand into RD approaches and access the RD knowledgebase could provide valuable insights to address limitations of the present study. While the current study focused on RA professionals’ interests and anticipated needs, it did not interrogate specifics in terms of procedures, feasibility, and scope of the desired RD work. More examination and explication of where, when, and how RD support could be layered (or is currently layered) into the RA work process would be beneficial. Relatedly, while the study explored interests and had participants imagine what they could do in the future, it did not capture whether or how interests translate into action and behavior. Next, this study focused on the RA staff member perspective without capturing the viewpoints of other stakeholders. As was mentioned by several participants, having buy in from administrators and the faculty themselves is needed to create the clientele for new RD-oriented services and programs. Including these perspectives could offer a more holistic understanding of where RA-led RD efforts are most feasible, impactful, or redundant. It will be important when expanding this work to be sensitive to different institutional contexts, including the characteristics of the faculty and staff populations, institutional structures and priorities, and overall readiness for change. Finally, the current study used two models—JD-R and ERB—as theoretical lenses. Alternative frames such as organizational change, professional identity, or implementation science could provide additional insights into the mechanisms and dynamics at play in RD integration by RA professionals.

Overall, the broad interest RA staff showed in traditionally RD-focused activities underscores the importance of making RD best practices and resources more accessible to professionals in the RA field. To build a more integrated model of research support, collaboration across stakeholder groups is essential. RA staff are encouraged to deepen faculty engagement, adopt RD-informed strategies, and pursue professional development to enhance their strategic role. RD professionals can support this shift by sharing resources, offering trainings for both faculty and RA staff, and fostering RD-RA partnerships. For institutions without dedicated RD professionals, RA staff may connect with the RD knowledgebase and mentors through RD professional organizations. Institutional leaders and senior faculty also play a critical role in enabling this integration by promoting a culture of collaboration, investing in staffing and training, and recognizing RA contributions. Finally, faculty are advised to engage RA staff early and consistently, leveraging these staff members’ expertise to strengthen their grant competitiveness and research success. Together, these coordinated actions can foster a more supportive and effective research environment, where the RA professional role is more fully utilized and RA staff members made agents for change and advancement in their institutional research ecosystems. 

Author's Note

Melanie Bauer
Division of Research and Economic Development, Nova Southeastern University
mbauer1@nova.edu (corresponding author)

Joshua Roney
Office of Research, University of Central Florida
joshua.roney@ucf.edu

Rachel Goff-Albritton
Division of Research, Florida State University
r.goffalbritton@fsu.edu

Corresponding Author

 
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Melanie Bauer. 
mbauer1@nova.edu 

References

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands‐Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Bauer, M., Goff-Albritton, R., Moore, S., & Roney, J. (2025a). Integrated research administration support: Broadening research administrators’ capacity to impact early-career researchers through the Research Development Knowledgebase. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17210888

Bauer, M., Goff-Albritton, R., Moore, S., & Roney, J. (2025b). Supporting first time grant submitters. In M. Schiffman (Ed.), Sponsored research administration: A guide to effective strategies and recommended practices: Chapter 2500 Pre-Award Services, January 2025 Update (pp. 2520:271-285). National Council of University Research Administrators.

Bland, C. J., & Ruffin, M. T., 4th. (1992). Characteristics of a productive research environment: Literature review. Academic Medicine, 67(6), 385.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2020). Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/carnegie-classification/

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

Cuhel-Schuckers, A., Martin-Tetreault, C., & Withers, C. (2016). The grants office and the RA generalist: Parallel life-cycles and development at small PUIs. The Journal of Research Administration, 47(2), 80–93.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The Job Demands-Resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

Eck, K. (2023). Feasibility and early results of providing research development consulting services to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs): Year 1 of the NORDP Consultants Pilot Project. National Organization of Research Development Professionals.

Eck, K., & Roney, J. (2023). What is research development? National Organization of Research Development Professionals.

Garrido, R., Trowbridge, C. A., & Tamura, N. (2019). Ten simple rules for providing optimal administrative support to research teams. PLOS Computational Biology, 15(10), e1007292. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007292

Goff-Albritton, R. A., Cola, P. A., Walker, J., Pierre, J., Yerra, S. D., & Garcia, I. (2022). Faculty views on the barriers and facilitators to grant activities in the USA: A systematic literature review. The Journal of Research Administration, 53(2), 14–39.

Matthews, C. M. (2012). Federal support for academic research [Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress].

National Council of University Research Administrators. (n.d.). What is a university research administrator? Retrieved June 3, 2025, from https://www.ncura.edu/AboutUs.aspx

National Organization of Research Development Professionals. (n.d.). What is research development? Retrieved July 17, 2024, from https://nordp.org/page/about

National Science Foundation. (n.d.). NSF 14-579: Facilitating research at predominantly undergraduate institutions: (RUI and ROA-PUI). Retrieved October 20, 2025, from https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/rui-roa-pui-facilitating-research-predominantly-undergraduate/nsf14-579/solicitation

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079

Poli, S., Kerridge, S., Ajai-Ajagbe, P., & Zornes, D. (2023). Research management as labyrinthine – How and why people become and remain research managers and administrators around the world. In S. Kerridge, S. Poli, & M. Yang-Yoshihara (Eds.), The Emerald handbook of research management and administration around the world (pp. 141–154). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-701-820231013

Preuss, M., Eck, K., Fechner, M., & Walker, L. (2018). Describing research development: A first step. Research Management Review, 23(1), 1–19. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1215447

Preuss, M., Fechner, M., Eck, K., & Walker, L. (2020). Research development and its workforce: An evidence-based compendium for higher education and other environments. International Journal on Studies in Education, 2(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonse.12

Ransdell, L. B., Lane, T. S., Schwartz, A. L., Wayment, H. A., & Baldwin, J. A. (2021). Mentoring new and early-stage investigators and underrepresented minority faculty for research success in health-related fields: An integrative literature review (2010–2020). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020432

Rhaiem, M. (2017). Measurement and determinants of academic research efficiency: A systematic review of the evidence. Scientometrics, 110(2), 581–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2173-1

Ryan, K. C., & Dunn-Jensen, L. M. (2016). Stretched thin: Stress, in-role, and extra-role behavior of educators. In G. Fink (Ed.), Stress: Concepts, cognition, emotion, and behavior (pp. 445–450). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800951-2.00061-3

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Applying the Job Demands-Resources model. Organizational Dynamics, 46(2), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.008

Schiller, J., & LeMire, S. (2023). A survey of research administrators: Identifying administrative burden in post-award federal research grant management. Journal of Research Administration, 54(3). https://www.srainternational.org/blogs/srai-jra2/2023/10/13/a-survey-of-research-administrators-identifying-ad

Solem, M. N., & Foote, K. E. (2004). Concerns, attitudes, and abilities of early-career geography faculty. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(4), 889–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.00440.x

Stoner, J., Perrewé, P. L., & Munyon, T. P. (2011). The role of identity in extra‐role behaviors: Development of a conceptual model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(2), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111102146

Stoop, C., Belou, R., & Smith, J. L. (2023). Facilitating the success of women’s early career grants: A local solution to a national problem. Innovative Higher Education, 48(5), 907–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09661-w

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed). Sage Publications.

U.S. Department of Education. (2023). Finance component (National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science. (2024, October 21). Institution designations/classifications. https://science.osti.gov/grants/Applicant-and-Awardee-Resources/Institution-Designations

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviours: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215–285.

Vander Kloet, M., & Campisi, C. (2023). Becoming legitimate academic subjects: Doing meaningful work in research administration. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 45(6), 658–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2023.2222446

Walden, P. R., & Bryan, V. C. (2010). Tenured and non-tenured College of Education faculty motivators and barriers in grant writing: A public university in the South. Journal of Research Administration, 41(3), 85–98.

Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(3), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/109634800002400301

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003

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. The Journal of Research Administration, 53(2), 119–140.