This project presents a mixed methods analysis of proposal editing in sponsored research administration at U.S.-based universities. As sponsored research funding has become increasingly competitive, universities have sought to support their faculty and research infrastructure by offering proposal editing services as a component of the proposal development process. However, the…
This project presents a mixed methods analysis of proposal editing in sponsored research administration at U.S.-based universities. As sponsored research funding has become increasingly competitive, universities have sought to support their faculty and research infrastructure by offering proposal editing services as a component of the proposal development process. However, the relative newness of proposal and research development as fields, combined with prior studies that show a general lack of research into proposal editing and faculty perceptions of proposal development resources, mean that these areas can benefit from additional focused research. This study aimed to answer two primary research questions: How do universities approach and offer proposal editing as a component of the proposal development process, and what are faculty reactions to editing services as a resource during that same process? The study consisted of two components: a survey of 32 faculty members' perceptions of editing services as an element of their proposal development, and interviews with ten research administrators and editors to discuss how editing services function within the proposal preparation process. Despite a small sample size and disciplinary homogeneity, the survey results showed that demand for institutionally provided editing services varies by research field and activity level, but that faculty showed noticeable interest in at least having the option of an editor reviewing their proposals prior to submission. Interview participants agreed that faculty who are new or early in their careers, along with faculty who speak English as a second language, are especially interested in receiving editing services. Editors themselves provide various levels of edit, dependent on their own backgrounds, editing timelines, and faculty receptiveness to the edits. When provided, edits focus on compliance and grammar, but deeper edits help academic styles of writing transition into more persuasive grant writing styles to strategically position the proposal. As proposal editing services become more widespread as a way of supporting faculty and increasingly proposal quality and success, universities should implement editing services according to faculty demand and needs. Careful implementation can ensure that editing services fully support faculty while making a meaningful impact on a university's research development strategies and goals.
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the State Bar of New Mexico's (SBNM) new podcast series, SBNM is Hear. The podcast was initially developed as a member outreach tool and a new platform for professional development and survey questions were developed to gauge the podcast’s effectiveness in these…
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the State Bar of New Mexico's (SBNM) new podcast series, SBNM is Hear. The podcast was initially developed as a member outreach tool and a new platform for professional development and survey questions were developed to gauge the podcast’s effectiveness in these two areas. An electronic survey was deployed to active members of the SBNM through email. Respondents were asked questions regarding their demographics, whether they had listened to the series, and what content they would like to hear in the future. The survey resulted in 103 responses, of which 60% indicated that they had not listened to the podcast. The results showed that listenership was evenly divided between generations and that more females listened to at least one episode. The open-ended responses indicated that the two cohorts of respondents (listeners and non- listeners) viewed the podcast a potential connection to the New Mexico judiciary. Future recommendations include conducting an annual survey to continue to understand the effectiveness of the podcast and solicit feedback for continued growth and improvement
