What are the different types of cost share? How do you know if a sponsor is requiring cost share and how they may calculate it? How do you prove you have matching sources? Is your Primary Investigator volunteering to provide match that your organization may be held accountable for?  Do you have cost share questions or horror stories to share?

Content level: Basic

Learning objectives:

1. Identify the difference between mandatory and voluntary committed cost share. 
2. Construct a cost share package from different sources. 

Track: Proposal Preparation & Submission

Speaker(s): M. Fran Stephens, Emeritus, Director, Office of Research Services, University of Oklahoma

Practical understanding of basic contract law principles and their application in sponsored research. Whether you're a non-lawyer contracts officer or seasoned attorney longing for the days as a 1L, this webinar provides context to some of the terms and conditions in almost every research contract. Understand why they exist, the potential risks involved, and how to minimize them.

Content level: Intermediate

Learning objectives:

1. Understand the key principles of contract formation.
2. Discuss methods to review, draft, and negotiate more confidently and effectively manage contractual relationships and avoid disputes.

Track: Award Acceptance & Negotiation

Speaker(s): Timothy Gehret, Associate Director, Contracts & Subawards, Georgia State University

This session will explain different styles of Responsibility Assignment Matrices (RAM), a type of project management tool, and evaluate the utility of RAMs in a decentralized research administration.  The presenter will then give examples of how to implement a RAM, and what are the key decision points in the construction of such a matrix.  Participants will have an opportunity to work in teams to develop a mini-RAM that they can take back to their organization, as well as time to ask clarifying questions.   

Content level: Intermediate

Learning objectives:

1. Understand what a Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM) is, what are the components of a RAM, and how to construct one.
2. Develop skills in creating and applying Responsibility Assignment Matrices in a decentralized research administration organization. 

Track: Expanding Research Capacity

Speaker(s): Jean McLaughlin, Grant Proposal Writer, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

The purpose of this session will be to examine the relationship between emotional intelligence, as perceived by university-sponsored research administration professionals, and their perceived leadership effectiveness, as measured by the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory and the Kouzes and Posner Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) for Self. Research administrators are now, more than ever, faced with increasingly difficult issues within the scope of their daily work processes. The relevant literature review focused on four key areas: the theoretical rationale for examining emotional intelligence and process improvement; the link between emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness; effective leadership and process improvement in higher education; and implications for research administration leadership.

Content level: Intermediate 

Learning objectives:

1. Define the following process improvement (PI), emotional intelligence (EI), and leadership effectiveness (le).
2. What role does emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness play in process improvement, design, and strategies.

Track: Professional Development and Leadership

Speaker(s): Ven Jones, Research Administration, University of Mississippi

This session will explore how research ethics, research integrity, and research compliance are terms that are often used interchangeably. To be effective in their roles, it is important for all members of the research community to understand the fundamental differences amongst these three concepts. Differences in how these words are used within an institution will determine how a research enterprise is structured and its approach to policies and procedures. When we lose sight of the importance of conducting responsible and ethical research, research misconduct (e.g., fabrication, falsification, plagiarism), non-compliance violations, and questionable/detrimental research practices can derail not only the science, but careers, and institutional reputations. Without public trust in the integrity of science, research cannot flourish. Therefore, it is the responsibility of all involved to protect the scientific research enterprise so that it may in turn serve to protect us all. In this session we will explore scenarios that highlight the integrity/compliance touch points in the pre-award stages of grants management and recognize why they are essential for protecting scientific integrity and financial stewardship of sponsored research awards.

Content level: Intermediate 

Learning objectives:

1. Understand how pre-award research administrators play an integral role in safeguarding scientific integrity.
2. Recognize the warning signs that something may be detrimental to the health and welfare of the research enterprise and know what actions need to be taken to correct the situation.

Track: Compliance & Research Integrity in Pre-Award

Speaker(s): Debra Schaller-Demers, Senior Director Research Integrity and Compliance, NYU

Ready to channel your inner detective? Research intelligence is the ultimate toolkit for uncovering hidden funding opportunities and spotting trends before they hit the headlines. In this session, you’ll learn how to follow the trail of sponsor behavior, decode institutional strengths, and piece together clues from global research landscapes. With the right strategies, you’ll transform from a reactive administrator into a proactive funding sleuth—solving the mystery of “what’s next” in research development. Bring your curiosity and prepare to crack the case! LO1-Define research intelligence and its role in strategic research administration.

Content level: Intermediate

Learning objectives:

1. Define research intelligence and its role in strategic research administration.
2. Identify key data sources and tools for analyzing funding trends and opportunities.
3. Apply research intelligence techniques to develop actionable insights for proposal success.

Track: Research Development & Strategy

Speaker(s): Kimberly Pratt, Director, Office of Research Development, Ohio University

Pre-award offices are being stretched thinner than ever by proposal volume, late faculty engagement, tight deadlines, and system limitations.  When things break, it is not just stressful, it affects proposal quality, timelines, and staff sustainability.
 
In this candid panel discussion, experienced research administrators will talk honestly about what causes pre-award operations to break down and how their offices are addressing it.  Panelists will share real examples, lessons learned, and practical fixes they have tried, what worked, what did not, and what they would do differently.  Attendees will leave with realistic ideas they can adapt to improve workflows, communication, and day to day resilience in their own pre-award offices.

Content level: Intermediate

Learning objectives:

1. Recognize common pressure points in pre-award operations, such as proposal surges, late changes, and coordination challenges, and understand how these issues impact staff capacity and proposal outcomes.
2. Identify practical peer tested strategies that can be adapted to reduce recurring disruptions and strengthen pre-award operations at their own institutions.

Track: Award Acceptance & Negotiation

Speaker(s): Monica Stinnett, Director, OSP Grants University of Alabama at Birmingham, Heather Wainwright, Assistant Director, Sponsored Projects Administration, University of South Alabama College & University

While both pre-award and post-award roles are essential to research success, they require different skill sets, stress tolerances, and professional strengths—and misunderstandings between these functions can create real operational friction. This interactive, game-inspired workshop invites participants to explore the similarities, differences, and interdependencies between pre-award and post-award work while examining how cross-training can strengthen team capacity and resilience.
 
Using realistic case studies from both sides of the research lifecycle, participants will work in small groups to tackle challenges ranging from proposal development and budgeting to award management, compliance oversight, and audit response. Guided discussion will highlight how issues emerge at different stages, how roles perceive and prioritize risk, and how cross-training can improve collaboration, coverage, and continuity. Attendees will leave with practical insights into where they—and their teams—can benefit from greater cross-functional understanding and skill-sharing. LO1 - Compare the roles, challenges, and risk points of pre-award and post-award functions and explain how gaps between them affect institutional capacity and effectiveness.

Content level: Basic

Learning objectives:

1. Compare the roles, challenges, and risk points of pre-award and post-award functions and explain how gaps between them affect institutional capacity and effectiveness.
2. Identify practical ways cross-training and cross-functional understanding can improve coverage, collaboration, and resilience across the research administration lifecycle.

Track: Expanding Research Capacity

Speaker(s): Linda Dement, Grant and Finance Program Manager, Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason, Cecilia Canadas, Research Administrator, Basic Sciences Pre Award Workgroup, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

Research administrators operate in environments marked by constant change, including evolving regulations, organizational shifts, workforce transitions, and technological advancement. Inspired by John Kotter and Holger Rathgeber’s Our Iceberg Is Melting, this session uses a leadership fable to explore how research administrators can recognize early warning signs of change and respond effectively. Participants will examine practical strategies for communicating change, addressing resistance, building collaboration, and sustaining momentum, and will leave with leadership insights they can apply immediately within their professional roles.

Content level: Intermediate

Learning objectives:

1. Apply leadership principles from Our Iceberg Is Melting to common challenges faced by research administrators.
2. Recognize early indicators of organizational change and assess leadership readiness within research administration environments.

Track: Professional Development and Leadership

Speaker(s): Pam Montgomery, Assistant Director, Duke University

In life, we are regularly faced with dilemmas:  complex moral problems for which there are no obvious answers. In research administration, we face these dilemmas on a recurring basis.  In such moments, we require critical thinking skills and our hivemind to help us find a way forward. The Dilemma Game invites participants to flex their moral muscles and compare their problem-solving skills with those of their colleagues.  Attendees will be presented with pre-award challenging cases, asking them to propose different solutions, using critical thinking skills to identify the best solutions with consideration of regulatory and institutional obligations that focus on risk mitigation, transparency, and compliance, in addition to good decision-making.  It’s a fun and enlightening way of practicing the inevitable quandaries of research administration.

Content level: Intermediate 

Learning objectives:

1.  Obtain basic critical thinking strategies for problem-solving.
2. Learn how to work with colleagues to resolve professional integrity concerns. 

Track: Compliance & Research Integrity in Pre-Award

Speaker(s): Mark Lucas, Chief Administrative Officer, UCLA, Ella Trubman, Senior Director, OSP PreAward, Scripps Research Institute

This session explores how research and program-driven organizations can maximize impact by blending federal, corporate, and foundation funding. Participants will learn to align project goals with sponsor priorities across sectors, structure proposals for different funding models, and strategically layer support to enhance innovation and scalability. Through case studies and planning frameworks, the workshop equips attendees with a clear approach to building diversified, resilient funding portfolios.  In addition to the two learning objectives below, participants will also learn how to:  Develop a practical framework for building diversified and resilient funding portfolios using case studies and planning tools to strengthen long-term program sustainability. 

Content level: Basic

Learning objectives:

1. Identify and compare federal, corporate, and foundation funding priorities to effectively align research and program goals with sponsor expectations across multiple sectors.
2. Apply proposal structuring strategies tailored to different funding models to successfully blend and sequence multisector support for innovation, growth, and scalability.

Track: Research Development & Strategy

Speaker(s): Debra Sokalczuk, Proposal and Award Coordinator, Pennsylvania State University-Harrisburg, Karen Mitchell, Director of Special Projects, Temple University

Content level: Intermediate

Learning objectives: 

       1. Identify the essential elements of a proposal submission form to ensure accuracy and compliance and evaluate                   how form design impacts proposal routing, review, and submission efficiency.

       2. Understand how the elements when the proposal is awarded are critical for the overall administration of the                        award.

Track: Proposal Preparation & Submission

Speaker(s): Cody Symanietz, Pre-Award Coordinator, The Pennsylvania State University, Alice Puzarowski, Pre-Award Coordinator, The Pennsylvania State University, Donna Kiley, Senior Director Post Award, Florida International University, Sharita Wallace, Sharita Wallace, Director of Pre-Award, Central State University

Curious how artificial intelligence can help streamline your day-to-day as a research administrator? This interactive session will showcase practical applications of AI tools to support core activities like drafting emails, reviewing contracts, and summarizing documents. We’ll walk through real-world examples using tools like ChatGPT and other generative AI platforms to automate and enhance efficiency without sacrificing quality or compliance. Whether you're preparing communications for faculty, navigating dense agreement language, or sorting through pages of policy, AI can be a game-changer. We'll cover strategies for prompting effectively, ensuring accuracy, and maintaining professional tone—and we’ll also discuss limitations, ethical considerations, and data security concerns. Join us for a hands-on look at how AI can be your new favorite teammate in the evolving research administration landscape. 

Content level: Intermediate 

Learning objectives:

1. Explore how AI tools can assist with common research administration tasks and leave with practical tips to test AI tools in your own office.
2. Learn prompt strategies to get accurate, context-aware outputs Identify risks, limitations, and compliance considerations.

Track: Expanding Research Capacity

Speaker(s): Anita Mills, Founder, Ignita Consulting, Ailing Zhang, Sr. Grants Manager, Office of Research Administration, Division of Research and Economic Development, Morgan State University, Poline Mirithu, Grants and Contracts Manager, Office of Research Administration, Division of Research and Economic Development, Morgan State University

Imposter syndrome is a psychological pattern where high-achievers doubt their skills and fear being exposed as a fraud, despite evidence of success, attributing accomplishments to luck or external factors. Symptoms include intense self-doubt, anxiety, perfectionism, fear of failure, and overworking.  Imposter syndrome causes distress and hinders personal growth. Through discussion and simulations, this session seeks to teach research administrators how to overcome (or at the least manage) feelings of inadequacy and anxiety, reframing failure as learning opportunities.

Content level: Basic

Learning objectives: 

1. How to handle feelings of inadequacy in your work.
2. How to mitigate uncertainties and anxiety in order to thrive in your work.
3. Learning to look in the mirror and see a lion rather than a kitty.

Track: Professional Development and Leadership

Speaker(s): Cecilia Canadas, P.A.W. | Research Administrator, Basic Sciences Pre Award Workgroup, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

U.S. export control regulations create compliance challenges for universities engaged in global research. This session provides a practical overview of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). We focus on how these laws affect sponsored research, technology transfer, international travel, and interactions with foreign nationals. Using real university case studies, participants learn how exports and deemed exports happen through data access, training, presentations, or electronic transmissions—often without physical shipments. The session emphasizes early risk identification, applying exclusions such as the Fundamental Research Exclusion, and strategies to ensure compliant research while preserving academic openness and integrity

Content level: Basic

Learning objectives:

1.  Identify export control risks in academic research. Recognize activities, technologies, contracts, and international interactions that may trigger EAR, ITAR, or OFAC compliance.
2. Use practical compliance strategies, such as exclusions, license exceptions, and Technology Control Plans. Support international research and protect institutional, legal, and national security interests.

Track: Compliance & Research Integrity in Pre-Award

Speaker(s): Denise Spiller, Director, Office of Research Security,  The University of Alabama in Huntsville

NIH institutional research training grants are among the most administratively complex proposals supported by pre-award offices. Unlike investigator-initiated research applications, training grants require coordination among multiple faculty, departments, and institutional units, as well as the development of trainee recruitment strategies, mentoring and curriculum plans, evaluation methods, and formal institutional commitments. Research administrators are often asked to support these submissions without clear guidance on the unique components of NIH training grant applications or the level of coordination needed. This session offers a practical overview of the essential elements of an NIH institutional training grant application and emphasizes the vital role research administrators play in supporting their development. The presenter will cover strategies for engaging faculty leaders early, clarifying faculty roles and expectations, and helping proposal teams connect with institutional resources such as evaluation support, data and outcomes tracking, compliance offices, and leadership signatories. Recognizing that institutional structures differ widely, the session will highlight flexible approaches suitable for institutions with centralized NIH training grant support as well as those where support is spread across departments or offices. Participants will leave with practical, adaptable strategies that can be scaled for different institutional settings, enhance collaboration between administrators and faculty, and strengthen pre-award support for complex, multi-stakeholder NIH training grant submissions

Content level: Intermediate 

Learning objectives:

1. Identify the core components of an NIH institutional training grant application and the corresponding pre-award support needs.
2. Apply adaptable strategies to engage faculty leaders and connect proposal teams with appropriate institutional resources across varied organizational structures.

Track: Research Development & Strategy

Speaker(s): Kelly Moore, Director, Training Grant Support Office Emory University

Pre-award work does not fail at submission, it breaks down earlier, in proposal initiation, handoffs, and unclear decision points across the proposal lifecycle.  When workflows are not clearly defined or consistently applied, teams lose time, staff get frustrated, and proposals arrive at the finish line unprepared.
 
This session focuses on how pre-award offices are operationalizing workflows from proposal initiation through submission.  Presenters will walk through common lifecycle stages, highlight where breakdowns most often occur, and share how different institutional models, centralized, decentralized, and hybrid, manage these handoffs.  Attendees will gain practical insight into structuring workflows that improve efficiency and submission readiness.

Content level: Basic

Learning objectives:

1. Identify key decision points and handoffs across the pre-award proposal life cycle and recognize where workflow breakdowns most commonly occur.
2. Compare centralized, decentralized, and hybrid workflow models and determine which operational practices can be adapted to improve efficiency and proposal readiness at their own institutions.

Track: Award Acceptance & Negotiation

Speaker(s): Monica Stinnett, Director, OSP Grants University of Alabama at Birmingham, Heather Wainwright, Assistant Director, Sponsored Projects Administration, University of South Alabama College & University

The journey from new Research Administrator to AOR can take many paths (even a few detours) before we wind up at our final destination.  This session will discuss how 2 AORs started at different points and ended up as AORs for a dynamic research institution.  We will share our insights on professional growth and will offer guidance to attendees on how to prepare themselves to take on the AOR role for their universities.

Content level: Intermediate

Learning objectives:

1. Assess their career goals and determine what their growth plan should be.
2. Identify mentor(s) to guide them in their professional development. 

Track: Professional Development and Leadership

Speaker(s): Caramen Martinez, Sr. Director, Grants and Award Management, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Caroline Dietz, Assistant Director, Grants and Award Management, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

Conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment are not signs of misconduct, but they can become risks to research integrity when they are misunderstood, undisclosed, or unmanaged. This session will explore how these conflicts arise in today’s complex research environment, clarify key regulatory and institutional expectations, and examine practical strategies for disclosure and management. Through real-world scenarios, participants will gain a clearer understanding of how transparency and proactive communication protect both researchers and institutions while supporting responsible research conduct.

Content level: Basic

Learning objectives:

1. Differentiate between conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment and explain why each matters for research compliance and integrity.
2. Apply institutional and regulatory expectations to identify, disclose, and appropriately manage common conflict scenarios in academic research settings.

Track: Compliance & Research Integrity in Pre-Award

Speaker(s): Sarah Haley, Research Financial Analyst, Denver Health & Hospital Authority