Killing Sacred Cows, Part 2: We Can’t Train What We Can’t Define

Killing Sacred Cows is a series examining the unspoken norms, taboos, and protected assumptions in academic research that are rarely questioned, even when they undermine effectiveness and resilience. This series names those assumptions, puts them up for debate, and asks whether they still deserve protection. Part 1: Staff Should Not Report to Faculty

Everyone agrees that research administration needs better training. Yet no matter how many new modules, certifications, or onboarding programs we roll out, it never feels like enough. The problems don't disappear - they just reappear in a new form: another misunderstood policy, another system workaround, another department reinventing the wheel.

It's exhausting. And it's largely because we're asking people to do a job that isn't accurately captured on paper.

We can't build effective training until we fix the foundation. The job itself is poorly defined, starting with the descriptions we put out into the labor market.

Job descriptions in research administration are often vague to the point of absurdity. They collapse dozens of specialized, high-stakes responsibilities into a few bullets, or generically stuff a long list of unwritten tasks into an "other duties as assigned" line at the end. That vagueness doesn't just confuse new hires - it undervalues the work, keeps pay low, and fuels the myth that anyone with "good organizational skills and the ability to work in a fast-paced environment" can manage complex sponsored projects.

When departments can't describe what research administrators actually do, they can't measure workload, design training, or build sustainable staffing models. The result is burnout, turnover, and a workforce constantly reinventing the wheel while creating compliance risk in the process.

New research administrators are the canaries in the coal mine - the first to feel every broken system, unclear policy, and impossible expectation. They arrive eager to learn and we hand them chaos and call it opportunity. If we can't build clarity and competence at the entry point, everything that follows is damage control.

Most research administration job descriptions are works of fiction. They reduce a dozen specialized compliance responsibilities into a few vague sentences that could describe almost any administrative role on campus. It's like handing someone a pair of skis, pointing them toward a double black diamond, and saying: you'll learn as you go, it'll be fine.

But skiing, like research administration, has fundamentals. You don't start by navigating trees and moguls - you start by learning balance, edges, how to control speed, and how to fall without breaking something. Those are teachable, measurable skills, and they're necessary before anyone should be sent down the mountain.

Instead, we push new administrators into the trees on their first run, rationalizing it because they have "transferable skills." They crash. They get hurt. And in the process they take out everyone around them - faculty, finance, compliance, everyone downstream. Then we act surprised when they burn out, quit, or trigger a compliance event.

Entry-level administrators should have zero "other duties as assigned." Their roles should be clear: what they're responsible for, what they're learning, and what success looks like. Only when the fundamentals are solid should the slope get steeper.

The good news is, it's not impossible to define. We just don't do it.

I developed a Pre-Award Blueprint that maps what it actually takes to become competent in the role - not the version written into job postings, but the real, measurable path to mastery. It covers the pre-award lifecycle, NIH budget basics, technical submission processes, and a Knowledge, Skills, and Competencies framework with a Task Responsibility Matrix. It spans ten pages, because that's what honest looks like. Realistically, it takes 18 to 24 months to become fluent in pre-award. That's normal. What isn't normal is pretending a few weeks of shadowing and an onboarding checklist can produce expertise.

If institutions want to attract people capable of getting up and over that learning curve, they need to treat research administration as a discipline, not a fallback career you stumble into.

That's what makes Virginia Commonwealth University's Research Ecosystems minor so notable. It's one of the first undergraduate programs to treat research administration and management as part of the broader research enterprise rather than paperwork that happens behind the science. Students learn how funding, regulation, ethics, compliance, and operations fit together - and pair that classroom foundation with internships across research administration, regulatory affairs, and research finance. It grounds theory in the realities of institutional systems before people ever take their first professional run.

We can't shortcut competence, outsource judgment to "good organizational skills," or keep hiding invisible labor behind vague job descriptions. Start with clarity. Start with fundamentals. Give new administrators a real roadmap and don't send them into the trees alone.

Do that, and you'll have staff who can not only survive the mountain - but ski it with skill, confidence, and maybe even a little joy.

Further Reading New Minor in Research Ecosystems to Debut in Fall 2025 at VCU, VCU News, April 2025. Pre-Award Blueprint, The Optimum Department