Short Sections

Developing a research administration mentoring program for university staff

A Synthesis Project Proposal

Presented to

The Faculty of the School of Liberal Arts

Saint Mary’s College of California

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Leadership

By

J. Cory

Conceptualization and Framework

The Context Within Which This Problem/Issue Arises

The field of research administration includes: grant proposal development, financial management, federal policy, university policy, departmental processes, human relations, facilities management, health and safety regulations, and contracting. The main challenge in research administration is its ever-changing nature. Policies and compliance requirements become more complex each year and the breadth of the subject matter within research administration make it particularly challenging to keep knowledge accurate.

In the Cicero University system managers are hired to oversee departmental operations, which include: hiring, financial management, facilities management, health and safety, and research. Most managers have extensive experience in human relations (HR) and/or finance, but generally little experience in the area of research management. Additionally, support staff members are hired as generalists but are expected to perform functions such as basic accounting tasks, processing student hire paperwork, ordering supplies, and administrative work. Many times they are also expected to support faculty who conduct research, meaning that they are asked to help with grant proposals, maintain grant-related documents, and interpret research policy while processing financial transactions.

The hiring process has little focus on how to orient people to their new environment. As they settle into their positions, they slowly learn how things work and who to go to with questions, but this process is informal and can take years. In addition, there are details managers and staff do not learn until it is too late, having made an error in how to handle a situation and thereby breaking some rule and putting themselves and the university at risk. In the area of research administration, these risks can be mitigated with training and a strong infrastructure to support managers and staff.

Description of an Opportunity/Issue to be Addressed

As described in the context section of this proposal, challenges arise for the research administrator because of the breadth and depth of the field. Not only do local policies and practices shift and evolve, national policy changes require research administrators to keep themselves informed and knowledgeable. Training is offered by the university in most of these areas, but is directed to a broad audience. Only one class is mandatory for personnel handling research administration.

The university’s research administration classes are very high level and are scheduled only quarterly, which may not line up with a hire date. Staff members who support research faculty are encouraged to take the same set of research administration classes, but are only required to take one cost policy class. Cost policy describes the basic rules, such as which expenses are allowed to be charged to sponsored projects and which are not, but does not provide a roadmap of specifically how to manage projects. The main problem for staff is not necessarily training, though. The fact that they may only handle a grant proposal once or twice a year means that without repeated exposure, the training does not seem to “stick.”

The University is already poised to change the way we approach training. Several years ago, the President of the University invited a consulting group to campus to hold discussions with various groups and inquire as to where these groups believed problems in research management were occurring. One of the outcomes of this inquiry was a directive for the central research administration office to update the University’s training program. New classes have been, and continue to be, developed, however it is unclear what impact these classes are going to have. I had the opportunity to work with the Director of Training to develop one class and a topic that continually came up in our discussions was the need for more one-on-one teaching.

Purpose of the Project

Given the complex regulatory and compliance requirements attached to research administration, a lack of knowledge of the regulations can put the University at risk of audit, federal sanctions and fines. The purpose of this project is to develop a mentoring program for incoming managers and staff such that they are provided a minimum level of expertise necessary to mitigate risk and create opportunity for better work to occur more easily. By having a mentor assigned to them, they will have a resource for questions when they arise and an experienced sounding board when presented with problems. Furthermore, this project provides an opportunity to expand current training and integrate mentoring with the existing formal classes, enhancing the development plans for managers and staff.

The outcome I expect to see from this project is, at a minimum, the beginnings of a mentoring program. I suspect that the program will initially live within the Department of Pediatrics, where I have the most influence and control. Depending on the enthusiasm of the project participants, and where they are placed within the University, the potential exists to spread a mentoring program throughout the School of Medicine and maybe the larger campus. With access to the Director of Training for the University, I am hopeful that a program could be implemented at the University level. Both the Director and I are members of a national professional organization (as are many of our colleagues) so I am also hopeful that we can present the findings of the project at regional meetings. If we are successful in implementing a mentoring program, I believe the interest at a national level would be very high.

Preliminary Research Question

The preliminary research question for this project is: How can we create an effective, sustainable research administration mentoring program for departmental managers and staff?

Literature Review of the Topic

Literature to be reviewed for this project includes writings by experts in the field of research administration, books and articles about mentoring itself, and sources relevant to leadership. While there are thousands of professionals in the field of research administration in the United States alone, the literature that exists is limited to articles published by two professional organizations. Generally, these articles describe current practice among university groups and policy insight at the national level. There are, however, a number of articles specifically addressing how institutional officials train and mentor their staff. For the purpose of this project, the body of literature that will be most relied upon is that specific to mentoring.

The literature on mentoring provides a solid foundation of knowledge in designing and building mentoring programs as well as how to make them effective. Sources include Allen, Finkelstein and Poteet’s (2009) book Designing Workplace Mentoring Programs: An Evidence-Based Approach, which will help me understand how mentoring programs are designed and will provide resources during the development stage of our (potential) mentoring program. The book includes practice tools, sample employee development plans and case studies.

Zachary’s (2000) book, The mentor's guide: facilitating effective learning relationships, has potential use toward the end of the project, or once the Saint Mary’s College portion of the project is done, as it describes the mentoring relationship and how one can create an effective relationship. The publisher notes that the book “explores the critical process of mentoring and presents practical tools for facilitating the experience from beginning to end” (Jossey-Bass, 2011, para. 1).

One source specific to research administration is Mullen’s (2009) article, “Re-Imagining the Human Dimension of Mentoring: A Framework for Research Administration and the Academy”, which discusses the role of mentoring in the academic environment. This will help me gain perspective from experts in the research administration profession as to how training can or should be approached in this field.

Literature on the topic of leadership will also serve as a source of reference during the project, providing somewhat of a roadmap for guiding the process and inspiring the participants. It will be important to remain mindful of the theories and principles of leadership scholars in order to reflect on the process and project outcomes. Several sources will be drawn upon, including Rost’s (1991) Leadership for the twenty-first century. Rost (1991) defines leadership as an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes. This type of relationship is ideal for mentoring and Rost’s discussion will provide insight for the project in terms of how we might develop mentors as leaders and mentees as followers.

Heifetz, Linksy and Grashow’s (2009) work The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world, will be another source of guidance for the project. Adaptive leadership is a method well placed in complex organizational environments, because problems in these environments need more than technical solutions. They require a process of observation, interpretation and intervention, which is the basis of the adaptive leadership process. Adaptive leadership focuses on mobilizing people to take on challenging problems. It is not a quick fix method, but instead looks at the underlying source of the problem and the system(s) it is part of. Given the complexity of the field of research administration and the multiple layers of management within the university system, this book could provide strategies for tackling the challenge of change implementation.

In their book, In good company: how social capital makes organizations work, Cohen and Prusak (2001) explain the importance of social capital in sustaining an organization. “Social capital consists of the stock of active connections among people: the trust, mutual understanding, and shared values and behaviors that bind the members of human networks and communities and make cooperative action possible” (p. 4). It is through social capital that knowledge is shared, trust is developed, and coherence is gained. There is a lack of social capital within my department currently, and I feel it is imperative to build this before a sustainable program for training can be implemented. Strategies for building social capital will prove an important foundation while developing a mentoring program so that trust can be fostered among employees.

Description and Discussion of the Selected Research Method

Action research is action-oriented, experience-based and invites participation. It seeks to “create a quality of engagement, of curiosity, of question-posing through gathering evidence and testing practices” (Reason & Bradbury, 2006, p. xxi). There are many methods within the action research family. These include collaborative inquiry (CI), where a group of people with a similar interest come together to explore a topic. In CI, the research is based on shared, lived experience (Bray, Lee, Smith and Yorks, 2000) and celebrates participation and democracy. Another action research method is appreciative inquiry, which is driven by the unconditional positive question and takes on an “intentional posture of continuous discovery” (Ludema, Cooperrider & Barrett, 2001, p. 158). A third methodology, also called Action Research, “is designed to be carried out by practitioners in the actual practice setting” (Kuhne & Quigley, 1997, p. 22). Its cycles of problem posing and problem solving take the participants through four processes: planning, acting, observing, and reflecting (Kuhne & Quigley, 1997).

Common to all methods in the action research family is the premise that the participants are the experts. Each person has an equally important view and has value to offer to the group. One of the assumptions of action research is that the participants are aware of the choices they make and their consequences (Reason & Bradbury, 2006). Action research emphasizes the collective experience, with genuine participation and engagement being at the core of the process. It involves cycles of action and reflection whereby the group expands their consciousness and is able to more effectively tackle complex problems.

Action Research Methodology

For this project, the Action Research (AR) method will be used. On a practical level, this method will serve the purposes of this particular project because it aims to change the system. The first phase in AR, planning, is prompted by recognition that there is a problem that we, the participants, see and want to resolve. It is “something that we become aware of that we just cannot seem to make ‘work,’ yet we know if should work” (Kuhne & Quigley, 1997, pp. 27-28). Before moving from the planning phase to the action phase the group “must gain a good grasp of the actual problem” (Kuhne & Quigley, 1997, p. 25) they are addressing. A dialogue among group members provides this understanding and also gives dimension to the issue by adding multiple perspectives of the participants.

In addition to understanding the problem, the planning phase needs to include a determination of how progress will be measured, how data will be collected and how it will be evaluated. Deciding what criteria will determine success of the project will help guide these choices. What type of change is expected? “How will action and change be observed and documented?” (Kuhne & Quigley, 1997, p. 31). At the end of the project, “if you are to have a sense of whether something is ‘better,’ you need to know where you started. ‘Better’ involves a comparison or a value judgment: better compared to what?” (Kuhne & Quigley, 1997, p. 30). The data collection and analysis phases depend on understanding your starting point.

The second phase of AR is action: initiating and conducting the action research project. This phase is about implementation and observation, the actual “doing” of the research. As discussed by Kuhne and Quigley (1997), to be successful, this phase requires constant awareness of the group’s progress. Is the group following the initial plan? Are the data collection methods providing the necessary information for progress and greater understanding of the problem? Observing results during the action cycle provides participants the essential insight for final analysis. Part of this observation includes recording the dialogue of the group and how the initial inquiry question shifts or evolves.

The final phase, reflection, is a means for evaluating outcomes. Reflection is a mechanism of learning from action (Bray et al, 2000) and informs future action. This process involves reviewing the data collected, revisiting the initial question, and evaluating how the project has informed the group. Some of the questions to ask, as suggested by Kuhn and Quigley (1997) include: What new insight has been gained? “What do the data reveal about the problem and the intervention?”... “Did the project produce promising results? Did the changes observed reflect what actually happened?”... “Is there promise in this approach, should there be another cycle of action research?” (pp. 34-35) One key to success is determining whether your results can be repeated by others; are the results generalizable?

Validity Procedures

Validity procedures “help improve the quality of knowing” (Heron as cited in Heron & Reason, 2001, p. 149) and provide a measure for progress and a favorable outcome. For research to be given validity, results must be repeatable and findings generalizable. Golafhsani (2003), states that in qualitative research, the concept of validity is often more appropriately defined as “quality, rigor and trustworthiness” (p. 602). In action research, validity procedures include research cycling (action and reflection). With action and reflection, ideas can be tested and their validity evaluated. In addition, by repeating cycles of action and reflection, “experiential and reflective forms of knowing progressively refine each other” (Heron & Reason, 2001, p. 150) and provide opportunity for new ideas to come to light. These cycles add a new layer of meaning to the conversations taking place as part of the research project.

In another validity procedure, divergence and convergence, participants either look at the same issue several times (convergent) or look at different issues (divergence) with each cycle of action and reflection. The choice of which approach to take is up to the group. Using convergence may allow for more in depth and detailed analysis of the issue, while divergence may allow for a broader analysis.

In a third validity procedure, challenging consensus or playing the Devil’s advocate, individual participants are encouraged to question their assumptions and challenge others’ ideas, thereby allowing new knowledge to be discovered as what was thought to be true shifts and evolves.

Another essential validity procedure is authentic collaboration. Basing the research process in democratic, open and authentic participation lays the foundation for productive dialogue. The “intersubjective dialogue,” as Heron and Reason (2001) describe, provides for an egalitarian relationship because “group members internalize and make their own the inquiry method” (p. 150). Members thereby feel they are heard and able to influence the decision making process within the group.

Validity also requires the use of multiple data gathering methods, giving the action research more meaning than if a single method were used (Kuhne & Quigley, 1997). Choosing to use, for example, journals of participants, questionnaires, and open dialogue feedback, allows one to triangulate and compare and cross-reference data, providing greater depth to the results of the research. Diversity of experience can also be a way to test ideas. Bray et al (2000) advise to “use sources of collaborating experience from at least three people as the basis for considering a finding as being collectively valid” (p. 109). Bringing the perspectives of multiple participants together to synthesize ideas and then testing the validity through reflection or by allowing an outsider to critique your findings, adds another level of reliability to the research.

Rationale for Using AR for this Project

Because the cycles of action and reflection and group work help people deal with complexity, Action Research should prove an effective method for this project. As mentioned above, research administration is growing more complex with time and requires knowledge in multiple areas (i.e. finance, compliance, lab management). The large scale change that is made possible with this method could easily lead to policy decisions and have a huge impact on University practice in terms of training.

If the group formed for this research project sees an opportunity to more effectively impact the research administration community, the action research we conduct could lead to the adoption of new practices university-wide. As mentioned in the Opportunity section, the study conducted by the University to find inefficiencies and areas for improvement opened the door for creative ideas designed to implement change. Action Research provides an opportunity to link theory and practice, putting ideas in action (Kuhne & Quigley, 1997).

The strength of the Action Research method is the practice-based methodology. By bringing in those who know the problem well, the experts, the problem can be addressed from the inside out. This strengthens the project because there is less time spent researching and trying to understand the details of the problem, which is what an outsider – a consultant – would have to do. The advantage of hiring a consultant would be the dedicated time they could spend focusing on the issue. This highlights one of the weaknesses of Action Research, which is the potential lack of committed time by the participants. Because the research is taking place in the practice setting, participants may be limited by workload and other projects.

Action Research will be used in this case because the problems are well known and documented. Alternate methods, such as collaborative inquiry (CI), would not provide the tangible results desired from this topic. If our inquiry question was “What has been your experience with mentoring or being mentored?” instead of “How can we create an effective, sustainable research administration mentoring program for departmental managers and staff?” then a CI would be the method to utilize. The purpose of this project, though, is to implement sustainable change in the area of research administration.

Basic Research Steps

As mentioned in the Methodology section, the basic research steps of this project include planning, acting, observing and reflecting. The planning stage includes gaining the necessary approvals, establishing who is going to participate, and deciding how data will be gathered and analyzed. The action phase includes conducting meetings, gathering data and enacting any ideas the group may develop. Observation will be a constant, as I record the details of our progress, and reflection will allow me to analyze the process and its outcomes. We will need to be realistic about what we can accomplish and take small steps toward change. Kuhne and Quigley (1997) explain that one should begin with a small aspect of the identified problem and build answers from there.

Process for Gaining Approval

In order to conduct this project, I first need to gain approval from my own department and from departments of colleagues of whom I request participation. I will be asking for resources such as release time for managers and staff. A formal but simple written request to each participant’s manager should be sufficient. Included in this request will be an explanation of the potential benefits the project can bring to the participants and the larger university community.

Criteria and Process for Selecting Participants

Participants will include colleagues who have had more than five years of experience in research administration and those who have had less than two years of experience. The reason for choosing experienced research administrators is because they have a good understanding of the problem, an essential first step in conducting an Action Research project (Kuhne & Quigley, 1997). Choosing less experienced administrators will bring fresh perspective on the problems from people who have struggled with policy and process more recently. In each group I hope to include staff and managers, since each handle different tasks and deal with different levels of the processes. In addition, I would like to include the Director of Training in the University’s central research administration office since her insight as a trainer, former manager, and well-versed research administrator will be invaluable.

Plan for Educating Participants about AR

In order to orient the participants in the methods of action research, for our first meeting I will prepare a short presentation or guide explaining what action research is and the purpose of conducting an AR project. I will act as the facilitator in group meetings, guiding the discussions as necessary to keep within our allotted time frame. The second meeting of the group will need to focus on identifying the problem and trying to gain a shared understanding of its facets before addressing the initial inquiry question.

Plan for Protecting Participants

This project has been reviewed by the Cicero University’s Institutional Review Board via a Determination of Human Subjects Research application. The purpose of the Determination is to establish whether a particular project meets the Institution’s definition of human subject research. A Notice of Determination (Appendix A) was returned with a decision that the project did not meet this definition and therefore did not require any further review or oversight by the Board. The project has minimal risks for the participants meaning that the probability of any harm to them is no greater than would be encountered in daily life or activities within the participants’ work environment.

Participants will be asked to sign a consent form (see Appendix B), confirming their voluntary participation. These consent forms will be distributed to participants at the time they are initially asked to participate and will be collected before the first meeting begins. In addition, the final report of this project will use pseudonyms for the participants and the organization. Information will be disguised so that statements cannot be attributed to specific individuals. Confidentiality and privacy will be carefully maintained during the course of the project by ensuring that communications are circulated only between members unless reviewed by the group and agreed upon so that should they be viewed by non-participants they do not readily identify individuals. A discussion on how to maintain anonymity will be maintained will take place in the first group meeting.

Data Gathering

At the beginning of each meeting I would like to find a means of focusing the group on the topic at hand and help them be fully present. I may try meditation or a drawing exercise. As part of the reflection process, at the end of each meeting, I would like to take time to review the progress made that day and question each other on what we have discovered, how we feel, and where we think the next step should point us. I anticipate three cycles of action and reflection spread over the course of six group meetings, with the second meeting most likely being the point where we decide on the first action.

I will ask another participant to take notes during meetings, probably rotating this role depending on the group’s preferences. These notes will be used as part of our data gathering. In addition, we may choose to conduct a survey of staff and managers to help us identify the key areas that need attention and might benefit most from a mentoring program. One of the questions we will need to address is how to gain support from the community in order to implement a mentoring program. By community, I mean faculty, staff, managers, and people who interact with these groups on a regular basis.

Other data will include preliminary research on mentoring programs, conducted through a review of the literature. This may also include inquiries to professional trainers or mentors in the research administration field at other universities. I will be looking for information on how mentoring programs are developed and sustained as well as data on the challenges and successes of programs. By introducing some of the evidence from the literature and exploring the attributes of our own organization, we should be able to model a successful program and add unique elements to fulfill our own needs. I anticipate that additional data may be gathered as the group determines during the implementation of the project.

During the entirety of the project I will be keeping researcher’s notes and logging my own questions. These notes and questions will add to the perspective I gain from the group itself and will provide me data for review as the project progresses and at the time of final reflection. This means of tracking the project and my own learning will be an important element of my final report.

Data Analysis

The fourth stage of the project is reflection, which includes a review the data gathered during our inquiry. This analysis will allow us to evaluate what has been discovered and learned through our discussions and actions. Kuhne and Quigley (1997) suggest the following questions: “What do the data reveal about the problem and the intervention? Were the criteria for success met? What do others think about the project? What are the tangible gains, if any?” (p. 34). It is possible that the results of this project become the beginning of a larger project, an impetus for further exploration and action. The data should provide enough insight to determine the next set of actions – either for our group or for a larger community of practitioners. The key question for us will be: can our actions be repeated?

The final group meeting will serve as a time for meta-reflection. Reviewing where we started and how we progressed will provide a means for evaluation. We will use this discussion to ask ourselves and each other what we have learned from the project and to give any final thoughts.

Validity Procedures

16

As described in the Research Method section, validity procedures will include active questioning of ideas (i.e. Devil’s advocate) and continual emphasis on collaboration, opening up the possibility for participants to engage with each other. Additionally, by combining the use of surveys with experiential data from participants, the data gathered should be diverse enough to strengthen conclusions we make about our developing mentoring program. The diversity of the participants also adds to the credibility of information. Instead of hearing solely the perspective of experienced research administrators, we will be hearing the experiences and perspectives of newer staff whose views are potentially quite different. This multi-perspective approach helps validate information, providing confirmation of our approach and allowing us to generalize for a designed mentoring program. Finally, by cycling through action and reflection, we are put in a position of using each outcome to inform our next decision. This process provides a means of learning and evaluating results.

Project Timeline

References

Allen, T.D., Finkelstein, L.M., & Poteet, M.L. (2009). Designing workplace mentoring programs: An evidence-based approach. Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444310320.

Bray, J., Lee, J., Smith, L.L., & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in practice: Action, reflection, and meaning making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cohen, D. & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: how social capital makes organizations work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Golafhsani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8 (4), 597-607.

Heifetz, R.A., Linksy, M. & Grashow, A. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Heron, J. & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) (2006), The handbook of action research: The concise paperback edition. (pp. 155-165). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Informed Consent for Participating in an Action Research Inquiry Project

Consent for participating in an action research inquiry project: Developing a research administration mentoring program for university staff

You are invited to take part in an action inquiry project initiated by Jennifer Cory to participate with a team of other university stakeholders to explore how to develop an effective and sustainable mentoring program for managers and staff in the area of research administration.

The team will meet for approximately ten weeks through multiple cycles of planning, action, observation and reflection. Jennifer Cory and the team together will determine the direction of the inquiry gathering the input from the team participants, other stakeholders, including staff, managers and faculty, to be obtained through meetings, conversations, interviews, and emails.

The project fulfills a requirement for the Master of Art in Leadership program, Saint Mary’s College of California, and provides an opportunity for Jennifer Cory to share Action Research methods for conducting an organizational inquiry.

Participation in this study is completely voluntary, and participants can decline to participate in any aspect and may withdraw at any time.

While at the outset we will establish ground rules about the confidentiality of our conversations, there is no guarantee that any confidential sharing during the inquiry will be held by all the co-participants in confidence. The final report presented to Saint Mary's College will keep both the personal and organization names anonymous by using pseudonyms.

Saint Mary’s College requires that an inquiry research project initiated by a graduate student include a consent form that identifies potential risks to participants. No special ones are anticipated other than the everyday risks of engaging in problem-solving and frank dialogue. While we will establish ground rules about the confidentiality of our conversations, there is no guarantee that what is expressed during the inquiry will be held by all the participants in total confidence. We will use real names during the project, although Jennifer’s report will use pseudonyms as a means of keeping confidentiality.

At this time no audio taping or videoing is anticipated, and will not happen without obtaining permission from the participants.

The data and outcomes from this inquiry will be available to the participants and will only be shared with their supervisors as requested by each individual participant. Jennifer’s paper for her coursework on what she learned from initiating the project will be filed in the Saint Mary’s College Library, and available through the graduate thesis database with the names of participants University given pseudonyms. The proposal, implementation and report will be reviewed by Jennifer’s Project Advisor, Marguerite Welch, Ph.D, and shared with classmates. If the findings are to be published or presented in a more public forum, permission will be sought from the participants and from University.

Action Inquiry moves forward on the enthusiasm of the co-participants, and the project does not monetarily compensate participants, including Jennifer as the convener of the inquiry. Any released time is a matter between the participant and their immediate supervisor.

Please direct any questions about this research to _Jennifer Cory_ (650-644-5913) or her Advisor _Marguerite Welch_ at 510-655-6786.

After reading this consent form, and receiving a copy, I agree to take part in this Action Research inquiry:

_____________________________________ ___________________

Signature Date

Agreement to Protect Action Research Participants

The proposed Action Research will not involve contact with a vulnerable population (e.g. children, terminally ill, mentally or legally incompetent) or involve risks of social or psychological harm from inquiry into a stressful issue (a highly charged or sensitive topic such as sexual behavior, death, stigmatized behavior or illegal activities). If the project involves, or changes toward involving a vulnerable population or a traumatic or highly confidential issue or increased risks to participants, or seeks to recruit participants that are accountable to the convener, or involves video/audio taping, I will seek my Advisor’s counsel so that relevant IRB protocols are followed.

Further, to ensure the rights and wellbeing of participants, I agree:

1. To review the Procedures for Protecting Participants and Obtaining Informed Consent in GLD Projects section of the Leadership Project Proposal Guide and the GLD Application for Protocol Approval approved by the IRB.

2. To conduct the research as proposed regarding steps to ensure confidentiality, and obtain informed consent as discussed in Basic Research Steps section of the proposal and the Consent Form created to for the project.

3. To describe anticipated risks in the Proposal and include them in the Consent Form.

4. To follow the principles and steps described in the document Procedures for Protecting Participants and Obtaining Informed Consent in GLD Projects.

5. To obtain my Advisor’s approval of my Proposal before proceeding past the initial recruitment of participants.

6. To check in with my Advisor at least once a month on the progress of the research.

7. To be in touch with my Advisor if there are significant departures from the research proposal in design, methods, or participants, or any incidents, or indications that may reflect on the protection of the participants.

RESEARCHER Jennifer J. Cory Date __________________

As faculty Advisor, I pledge to monitor the ethical issues regarding protection of participants as human subjects, and consult with the IRB (or proceed to standard IRB protocols) in the case that the research involves a vulnerable population, a highly sensitive topic, or unusual risk .

FACULTY Project Advisor Marguerite Welch Date 3/23/11

Authorization to Participate in an Action Research Inquiry

I authorize Jennifer Cory to move forward with recruiting participants and implementing the action inquiry project represented by the attached Consent Form.

_ _______ _Dean of Research_____________

Signature Date Title

__________________________ ___________________

Signature [of student] Date

MAR

choose participants

gain approvals

APR

review progress with advisor

second & third group meetings

MAY

review progress with advisor

fourth & fifth group meetings

first group meeting

schedule future group meetings

data gathering

revisit intitial question and adjust direction of project as necessary

JUN

data analysis

final group meeting: review plan of action

begin writing up results of project

review progress with advisor

JUL

consult advisor as needed

continue writing