From Research Culture to Infrastructure: Enhancing Capacity Building in Social Work Programs

1. From Research Culture to Infrastructure: Enhancing Capacity Building in Social Work Programs • Jerry Flanzer, San Jose State University Graduate Studies and Research • Ruth McRoy, Boston College Graduate School of Social Work National Association of Deans and Directors Naples, Florida April 10, 2010

2. Overview of Presentation • Considerations in Developing Research Culture and Infrastructure • Drivers of Changing Research Culture • Assessing Readiness for Change and for Capacity Building • Internal and External Supports for Research • Connecting Research to the Teaching and Service Mission • Challenges and Sustainability Flanzer & McRoy 2010

3. Social Work Programs: Variations in Infrastructure Support and Capacity • Ranging from • extensive internal supports for faculty research to programs seeking to create research culture to address deficiencies in research capacity • (Jenson, Briar-Lawson & Flanzer, 2008). Flanzer & McRoy 2010

4. Drivers of Changing Research Culture • Focus on evidence based practice and practice relevant research • Growing visibility of social work research • 1997 NADD Report on Administrative Research Structures in SW Education • Competition/Rankings • Community demand for research capable practioners and policy makers Flanzer & McRoy 2010

5. Changing Academic Expectations in Social Work Programs • Changing expectations for students • Changing expectations for faculty tenure and promotion • Growing pressure for social work faculty to join, lead, contribute to cross- campus research efforts Flanzer & McRoy 2010

6. Drivers of Changing Research Culture • Availability of Research Funding • Development of NIDA , NIMH and other Federally Funded Social Work Centers • New Federal grant opportunities open to all in social work domains- health disparities, RIMI, CBPR, health services, adjudicated youth/mental health treatments…. Flanzer & McRoy 2010

7. Infrastructure Funding History • Federal Resources • NIMH (1993-2000) • NIDA (2000-2004) • (RIMI – 2006- 2010) • OBSSR • State and Local • The state-federal matches (child welfare, substance abuse, aging) • # the single school to state advantage • Foundations – national and local • Hartford, RWJ Flanzer & McRoy 2010

8. Drivers of Changing Research Culture • SW Organizational Support for Research • St Louis Group • NADD • CSWE, SSWR, IASWR, NASW Flanzer & McRoy 2010

9. Challenges BSW and MSW Programs Face • Workload/Time • Teaching • Service • Office hours • Lack of teaching assistants • Support for research/mentors/funding • Pre and post grantsmanship, • Methodologists, statisticians, reviewers • University capacity, reputation • Community support • Pilot funds Flanzer & McRoy 2010

10. Structural Disincentives/Challenges to Building Research Capacity • Lack of faculty with research expertise • Competing demands on faculty time • Heavy workload/ international travel • Quest for teaching excellence • Have to choose: Publications vs. funding • Who will do the teaching if faculty buy out? • Desire to work primarily on conceptual pieces • Lack of release time • Not connected with Agencies/Centers Flanzer & McRoy 2010

11. Assessing Readiness for Change • Assess Mission and Goals within context of the University • Assess Resources, Capacity and Structure of the Program • Promoting Research Climate and Culture • Use of Strategic Planning • Role of School’s Leadership • Handling Resistance to Change Flanzer & McRoy 2010

12. For consideration • What are the benefits of research for : • Students • Faculty: T3, Research and clinical • Staff • School • Community • Teaching/Curriculum Flanzer & McRoy 2010

13. Benefits for Teaching/Curriculum • Doctoral research practice • PhD, BSW and MSW RA positions • Post Doc’s • Research class assignments • Adds to class content across the board • Helps to focus faculty interest and output • Dissertation research Flanzer & McRoy 2010

14. Incentives for Faculty and School • Research informs practice and teaching • Enhances students experiences and learning • Prepares students to meet the demands of working in urban areas • Prepares students to use data in their practice • Provides employment opportunities for students • Provides more opportunities to address key issues in community and nation • Provides more opportunities for collaboration (within the school, across campus, partnering with community, and with colleagues in other schools/universities and agencies Flanzer & McRoy 2010

15. Incentives for Faculty and School • Desire to make a difference/knowledge • Improve lives of children, families and communities • Commitment to social justice • Establishes professional recognition within the university and the field at large • Opens doors to a myriad of national and international exposure • Provides funds that allows for program and resource development Flanzer & McRoy 2010

16. Incentives for research – the personal payoff • Research support staff • Prestige and tenure • Funding for travel • Time away from teaching • Merit increases • Course reduction • Return of indirect/overhead • Funds for Computers and other “toys” • Space Flanzer & McRoy 2010

17. Factors influencing Faculty Involvement (practical review) • Promotion and Tenure requirements • Teaching/advising load • Workload—Field responsibilities • Faculty incentives • Availability of funds • Interests of available faculty Flanzer & McRoy 2010

18. Factors influencing Faculty Involvement • Ease of implementation • Least effort and cost • Accessibility of Population • Captive populations (students) • Relationships with community agencies, centers on Campus • Response to community needs Flanzer & McRoy 2010

19. Factors Influencing Faculty Involvement • Opportunities for Collaboration • Space • Availability of students • Research infrastructure • Technical and research assistance • Budgeting assistance pre and post award Flanzer & McRoy 2010

20. Faculty Interest/Expertise(Funding Mismatch) Flanzer & McRoy 2010

21. Considerations: Assess Research Capacity • Impact of growth in research funding/centers • Who is involved in research? • Motivating faculty to engage in research • Mentoring junior faculty • Assess Faculty Strengths • Competing Demands • Who is doing the teaching? • Who is doing field? • Service? • Interest in expanded international program • Interest in online programs Flanzer & McRoy 2010

22. Assess Research Capacity • Multiple roles for faculty-teaching, research, liaison, service • Role of students • Level of available external funding • Sufficient to justify the effort? • Role of Center and associated staff Flanzer & McRoy 2010

23. Moving towards Research Infrastructure • Administrative structure/Positions • Associate Dean/Chair • Center Staff: Accounting, support • Research Scientists • Space • Funding • Affiliation of faculty with Center Flanzer & McRoy 2010

24. Research Center Models Differ • Centers/Institutes--Definitions • Focus • Specific • Generic • Research Funding • Types of Research • Evaluation vs Research • Number and type of faculty involvement • Staffing—Director/Associate Director • Associate Dean for Research Flanzer & McRoy 2010

25. Research Center Models Differ • Organization • Relationship to School’s Administrative Structure • Board/Steering Committee • Infrastructure funding • Core funding • Pilots Flanzer & McRoy 2010

26. Research Center Models Differ • Services offered—Pre and Post award • Administrative/Accounting for all grants • Human Subjects Review • Editing/Grant writing • Review of proposals • Feedback • Consultation • Integration of Center(s) within School • Level of interdisciplinary collaboration • Dissemination Flanzer & McRoy 2010

27. Types of Infrastructure Assistance • Grant writing • Library of grants • Space • Training/funding for consultation on grants/methodology, etc. • Pre and Post award • IRB • Grant review process • Indirect return Flanzer & McRoy 2010

28. Issues for Research Programs • Administrative Structure • Funding sources • Overhead Costs • Supporting Research infrastructure • Involving graduate students • Responding to requests from community • Space Flanzer & McRoy 2010

29. Issues for Research Programs • Appropriate attention to expertise on specific populations • Culturally competent research • Interdisciplinary research • New staff needs: Biostatistician • Grants specialists • Balancing teaching and research • Publication of findings Flanzer & McRoy 2010

30. Next steps for consideration • Current funding • What happens when grants end? • # ending in 2010 • # ending in 2011 • Impact on School • Whose funded and who is not? Flanzer & McRoy 2010

31. Questions for Discussion • In what ways, if any has the School’s focus on externally funded research enriched or hindered its educational programs? • If so, in what ways? • If so, to what extent? • In what ways, if any, has the School’s focus on externally funded research enriched or hindered its service mission? • If so, in what ways? • If so, to what extent? Flanzer & McRoy 2010

32. Enriched Hindered Impact on educational Programs Flanzer & McRoy 2010

33. Enriched Hindered Impact on Service Mission Flanzer & McRoy 2010

34. Questions for Discussion • What is the culture of research in your program? • What are biggest challenges to writing proposals and managing projects? • What would be the most efficient and effective administrative structure for research within your social work program? Flanzer & McRoy 2010

35. Questions for Discussion • What steps have been taken to increase collaboration with community partners? • What other steps can be taken? • What are biggest challenges in getting funded? Flanzer & McRoy 2010

36. Discussion Flanzer & McRoy 2010