Grant Development & Strategy |
To explore how growth in research development (RD) is taking shape, I interviewed two leaders from RD programs who are actively building and redesigning innovative approaches to support their institutions’ research goals. This synopsis provides insight for exploring how to build or redesign a research development program.
Apart from its vital role in helping researchers find funding, Research development (RD) is a growing, dare I say, exploding niche within the broader picture of research administration. The National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP) defines RD as “strategic, catalytic, and capacity-building activities.” Courtney Hunt and Dhanonjoy Saha describe RD in plain language as “assessing where an institution or team currently is, where they want to go, and formulating a plan of how to get there” (Hunt & Saha, 2022). It’s about creating environments where research can flourish.
Research development (RD) is gaining recognition as an attractive career field (Siedhoff, Easter, et al, 2026). To explore how this growth is taking shape, I interviewed two leaders from RD programs via email who are actively building and redesigning innovative approaches to support their institutions’ research goals.
Sandy Justice is the Director of the Research Development Institute (RDI) at the University of South Florida (USF), and Kimberly Pratt, MA, CRA, is the Director of the Office of Research Development (ORD) at Ohio University (OH). Both bring decades of Research Administration (RA) experience and are now leading RD teams. I sent each of them the same 28-question survey (eek, big, right?!), asking about their firsthand experience and how their institutions approach key aspects of research development.
Don’t stop reading! I’m not presenting all the results in this summary. This is the TL:DR (too long: didn’t read) version. I’ve pulled specific points and edited comments to highlight what I think is a useful starting point for exploring how to build or redesign a research development program.
Origin & Vision
What gap or need within your institution’s research ecosystem led to the creation of your research development program?
Sandy Justice (SJ): RDI was created to complement, not replace, the research administrative model, providing proactive support of USF’s growing research enterprise. The increasing complexity of the landscape requires focus on strategy, grantsmanship, and team science rather than transactions alone. RDI was designed to reduce administrative burden, increase proposal competitiveness, and provide faculty with concierge‑level research development support across the full lifecycle of idea to submission.
Kimberly Pratt (KP): In developing a new vision for the research development office, the university identified several needs: 1) to align research development activities with institutional priorities and emerging opportunities in the external funding landscape, 2) to cultivate a culture of continuous growth and innovation among researchers at all career stages, 3) to ensure that research development investments are data-informed and aligned with OHIO’s mission, 4) to foster a vibrant, forward-looking, and competitive research environment, and 5) to position OHIO faculty for success in securing large-scale, high-impact funding.
Planning & Development
How did the planning process for the RDI unfold, from concept to launch?
SJ: The planning process had a structured progression, starting with a listening tour to identify faculty and administrator needs, then benchmarking against national models, followed by the development of a formal proposal to university leadership, and finally, the formation of an implementation task force.
What were the most important decisions made during the development phase?
SJ: Key decisions included positioning RDI as a centralized yet collaborative unit, prioritizing services with the highest strategic impact—such as multi‑PI proposal support and competitive intelligence. Another critical decision was designing RDI with a growth mindset by starting strategically, then scaling services as demand and capacity increase.
Organizational Structure & Services
What core services or programs were prioritized at launch, and why?
SJ: Unlike research administration support, which is largely housed within colleges or departments, RDI is centralized, reporting to the Vice President of Research and providing a suite of RD services to all USF faculty. At launch, RDI prioritized support for large, interdisciplinary proposals. The first RD services included grant capture, proposal review, constructive editing, and scientific illustration/graphic design. These foundational services were selected because they directly improve proposal clarity and competitiveness, which we believe are key factors in funding success. To facilitate team science, think tanks were launched to facilitate faculty synergy.
KP: Supporting the creation of large-scale, interdisciplinary, multi-institutional ideas was our main priority. In addition to providing project management, proposal creation support, and budget planning aid, we organized proposal development teams. We also developed tools and resources to help faculty craft competitive and innovative proposals, continued to oversee the administration of internal seed-funding and pilot grant programs, and organized workshops and training sessions.
Challenges & Lessons Learned
What were the biggest challenges encountered during the development of your program?
SJ: One of the biggest challenges was change management and the capacity limitations of a lean team. We had to help stakeholders understand how RDI complements—rather than replaces—existing research support. Building trust, clarifying roles, and demonstrating early wins were critical to overcoming this challenge.
KP: The most significant challenge is “flying the plane while building it.” The office must find capacity to undertake the strategic work necessary to advance long‑term goals while simultaneously sustaining day‑to‑day operations in an environment where formalized processes and practices are still under development.
Another challenge lies in clarifying the department’s role within the broader research enterprise, establishing a cohesive university research support service model, and clearly articulating the value of research development, particularly to faculty who may be skeptical or unaware of the scope of research development services.
Impact & Outcomes
How do you measure the effectiveness and impact of your program?
SJ: RDI measures impact through a combination of quantitative metrics, such as proposal volume, success rates, and funding outcomes. We also use qualitative feedback from faculty. In the longer term, we continue to examine the breadth of our research, strengthening the way we partner with the industry and measuring the broader impacts on the communities we serve.
KP: We are in the early stages of designing systems to collect data that will later be analyzed to assess the impact of research development services on proposal success. In parallel, we have begun gathering faculty impact stories (testimonials), workshop evaluations, and tracking the conversion of internal awards into external proposal submissions. We are working to build comprehensive evidence of the value of research development support.
Future Directions
What advice would you give to other institutions seeking to establish a research development office?
SJ: Start with listening. Ground your design in faculty needs, benchmark rigorously, and focus on clarity of purpose. Invest in people with both technical and relational expertise, and design RD support that is flexible, scalable, and deeply aligned with your institution's research mission.
KP: Just do it. Don’t wait for a perfectly designed plan to start a research development office. Rather, start by determining the most urgent needs of your institution and work from there, letting the larger framework unfold naturally. Progress doesn’t have to be all at once. Leverage the resources you do have and hire staff that are mission-oriented and comfortable working in ambiguity. Flexibility, curiosity, and a willingness to iterate are far more valuable than perfection out of the gate.
I think Sandy sums things nicely: “The most important lesson is that research development is fundamentally about relationships. Effective infrastructure requires know-how, data, and tools. However, success ultimately depends on collaboration and responsiveness. Starting with purpose and clarity makes everything else scalable.”
A huge thank you to Sandy and Kimberly for graciously tackling this questionnaire and providing valuable insights into the nuts and bolts of constructing research development programs.
AI Statement
Kimberly used Grammarly to ensure correct grammar and punctuation. Sandy used Copilot to polish her interview responses.
References
Hunt, C. & Saha, D. (2022, July 13). ICYMI: What is research development? Catalyst. https://www.srainternational.org/blogs/srai-news/2022/07/13/icymi-what-is-research-development
NORDP. What is research development? National Organization of Research Development Professionals. https://nordp.org/page/about
Siedhoff, H., Easter, M., Rieger, K., Toigo, A., Teeple, E., Russell-Simmons, H. N., & Emerson, C. (2026). Moving Toward Better-Defined Research Support Roles: Piloting Postdoctoral Training for Research Development. Research Development Review: The NORDP Journal, 1(1), 55. https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=rdr_nordp/