Credibility in
Research Development Facilitation:
Looking Good in Many Hats!
Christine Black
Dawn McArthur
Pradip Pramanik
University of Michigan
University of BC
NC State University
Objectives
• Understand credibility
• Learn about credibility “busters”
• Identify ways to build and regain
credibility
Activities
•
•
•
•
•
Presentations
Role-play
Share stories
Find solutions
Have fun
The Credibility Challenge
Dawn McArthur, PhD
Head, Research & Technology Development Office
Child & Family Research Institute
University of British Columbia / BC Children’s Hospital
Why credibility?
In response to common questions
•
•
•
•
•
•
How can I get people to take me seriously?
How can I convince them I’m here to help?
How do I ensure that I’m heard?
What can I do when a researcher…?
What can I do if I don’t know …?
What if I’m wrong about … ?
What does credibility mean?
• How trustworthy, reliable and
competent we are considered to be
• The level of confidence others have
in us to do our job well
and with integrity
Credibility matters
because…
• It must be earned
• It is not permanent
• It can be the best tool for
– or worst barrier to – success
Credibility is a challenge
because …
• We often work with people
who don’t know us well
• We work in a variable and
constantly changing landscape
• We have little control over
many factors that affect our work
Key factors
Individual
Organization
• Reputation
• Resources
• Attitude toward
employee
independence
• Decision-making
support
• Internal policies
and procedures
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Position title
Formal training
Experience
Age
Gender
Culture / community
Worldview
Values
experience
policies approach ego
power gender assumptions
opinions logistics morals
time
reputation
content
boss
procedures
stress
tools
money culture honesty
communication
Credibility Busters in
Research Facilitation
Pradip Pramanik, MSc
Assistant Director
Proposal Development Unit
Office of Research, Innovation, and Economic Development
NC State University
(919) 513-0170
Credibility: A Complex Web
Credibility
Credibility & Research Facilitation
Effective
Research
Facilitation
Time
Credibility Busters
• Not accepting personal responsibility
• Not telling the truth
• Withholding or not sharing accurate
information
• Making decisions without input
from the team
Credibility Busters
• Failing to keep up with
your field of expertise
• Failing to do what you said you would do
• Trying to do everything…control freak!
• Dominate team dynamics, rather than
facilitate team dynamics
Credibility Busters
• Ridicule suggestions from others
• Play the blame game!
• Rigid-rule enforcer, rather than
being flexible and adaptable
• Not maintaining a balance between
accomplishing tasks and constructive
relationships
Credibility Busters
• “All-knowing” attitude, making
grandiose claims about self
• Being defensive to constructive
feedback
• Participate in rumors and gossip
• Saying one thing and doing another
Gaining (or Re-Gaining) Credibility
in Research Development
Christine Black, MLS
Office of Research
(Research Development Support)
University of Michigan Medical School
So you made a mistake?
• That’s life – we all do –
– don’t wallow in self pity
or incriminations – just move on
• Never send an email or make a phone call
too soon – reflect after a good long think
and a good sleep & respond thoughtfully
• Don’t blame others for your missteps
• Rejoin the effort as if nothing had happened
Now rejoin the team
and
salvage your credibility…
Do Some Detective Work
before the 1st Meeting
• Become familiar with similar work, e.g.,
– Successful projects to the same sponsor,
in the same field, using the same mechanism,
similar initiatives
– Similar protocol/process
• Offer to obtain samples/surveys
if necessary
Come to the Meeting with Blueprints…
Be Prepared
•
•
•
•
•
Prepare an outline
Keep it simple
Note the basic structure
Note the wow factors
Note the pitfalls in advance
Assume the Role of Task Leader
• Take charge of calendar
and assignments
• Remind players of their roles
• Provide motivation if needed
• Take the “first stab,” e.g., write a section,
assemble a committee, find an article,
research a relationship between agency
& university
Coach if Necessary
• Teams that win have values,
not necessarily the best talent
• Motivation should be “a better tomorrow”
not beating the competition
• Success comes from contributions,
not “winning” – create a vision
Add Some Optimism
•
•
•
•
•
Assess likelihood of success
Remind group of assets
Identify additional assets if possible
Are there ways to offset shortcomings?
Can you appropriately add humor
to the conversation?
Remain Humble & Respectful
•
•
•
•
•
•
“May I suggest”
“If you would like me to”
“This is for your consideration”
“If this is most convenient for the group”
“I would be more than happy to…”
“At your convenience”
Bring in Reinforcements
• Assess any missing links
• Suggest consultants
– a statistician, data analyst,
subject matter specialist
OR
– “Dr. Certainty”
• May be most useful for internal reviews
Try to Respond as Promptly as Possible
• Acknowledge mail messages –
may have to answer Qs later
• May deliver shorter or
partial version before a
more complete draft is possible
• Try to work from a calendar for group
to include all tasks including
your turn-around time
Try to Avoid the Dirty Work
• Do what ever needs to be done
BUT
• See if there is someone else
to schedule meetings, create
email groups, develop tables,
order catering, assemble proposal,
take minutes, etc.
A group is meeting for the first time
to discuss development of a large proposal
The Project
University A is assembling a Team to apply for major funding
for a new Center for Fighting Children’s Obesity
The Players
Professor A
PI
Senior faculty member
Professor B
Co-PI
Junior faculty member
Professor C
Co-investigator
Midcareer faculty member;
respected; has own agenda
Facilitator 1
Senior RD professional
Helping to develop the proposal
Facilitator 2
Junior RD professional
Observing the meeting
Scenario 1
• The PI has invited a newly-hired assistant professor
to join as co-PI, because Teams that include junior
co-PIs will have a significant competitive edge
• One co-investigator demands a large budget item –
a fully equipped gym to study cardiovascular output in
exercise – that is tangential to the Center's purpose
and will cost $250,000
Scenario 2
• Prof B leaves the meeting feeling very despondent –
knows s/he has been invited to participate as a token
and that the PI does not know (or apparently care )
about what s/he brings to the team
• At same time, Prof B’s first major grant has been
rejected and s/he is discouraged by the reviews
• Prof B wonders if s/he has made the right career choice
in the current competitive research environment
• Prof B has an appointment with Facilitator 2
to discuss the next steps